Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.48 seconds)
Retired Officers Welfare Society & Ors vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr on 4 April, 2025 cites

D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982

That is the combined effect of Staff Circular No. 18 dated 8-4-1974 read with the Pension Fund Rules referred to supra. The reason for prescribing the maximum age-limit of 35 or 38, as the case may be, for the purpose of induction into Pension Fund appears to be that the employee would be able to render minimum service of 20 years as contemplated by Rule 22 of the Pension Fund Rules. However, there does not appear to be any rationale or discernible basis for fixing the cut-off date as 1-1-1965, notwithstanding their earlier confirmation in bank service. True, a new benefit has been conferred on the ex-servicemen and therefore, a cut-off Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 4406/2017 and connected matter Page 51 of 59 Signing Date:07.04.2025 23:51:06 date could be fixed for extending this new benefit, without offending the ratio of the decision in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [(1983) 1 SCC 305 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 2485 - D A Desai - Full Document

The Secretary Ima Leishem Innat ... vs State Of Manipur And 3 Ors on 3 February, 2020

58. I may also allude to the judgment in All Manipur Pensioners Association (supra), wherein the Supreme Court was dealing with classification of retirees based on a formula of pension whereby those retiring prior to 01.01.1996 were given a lower rate of revised pension compared to those retiring after the said date and the Supreme Court held that the classification had no reasonable nexus to the objectives sought to be achieved while revising the pension as all pensioners formed a single class. Relevant paragraphs are as under:-
Manipur High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

V.R. Hiremath And Ors. vs Indian Oil Corporation And Ors. on 10 January, 2002

Lastly, Mr. V.N. Koura had relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in V.R. Hiremath (supra) and much emphasis was laid on the judgment on account of the fact that it dealt with the same SBF Scheme and where IOCL was the Respondent. The judgment of the Division Bench, however, cannot rescue IOCL for the simple reason that Petitioners in the said petition sought a writ to the Respondents to give benefit of the SBF Scheme under MoU dated 07.11.1987. Petitioners were employees of IOCL who had retired between October, 1986 to November, 1987. Declining the relief to the Petitioners, the writ petition was dismissed for the reason that the benefit of the Scheme Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 4406/2017 and connected matter Page 58 of 59 Signing Date:07.04.2025 23:51:06 could be given only to those employees who were in service when the Scheme came for the reason that the amounts were to be contributed by the employees themselves and annuities were to be purchased from LIC to grant pension, which is not the case here and in fact, as noted above, the Division Bench highlighted the self-contributory nature of the Scheme and how it was self-sustaining.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - D B Bhosale - Full Document

State Of West Bengal And Ors. vs Ratan Behari Dey And Ors. on 6 August, 1993

In Ratan Behari Dey (supra), the Supreme Court has held that a Scheme of grant of pensionary benefit as a condition of service can be made operative from a cut-off date even retrospectively provided fixation of cut-off date is reasonable and non-arbitrary. There can be no dispute with this proposition and this is exactly what the Petitioners urge, however, in the present case, Court has found the fixation of the date to be arbitrary and discriminatory.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 164 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 Next