Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Section 8 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Asger Ibrahim Amin vs Life Insurance Corp. Of India on 12 October, 2015
In this regard, reliance is placed on Asger Ibrahim
Amin v. Life Insurance Corporation of India,1 wherein the Supreme Court
treated an employee's resignation as voluntary retirement for extending
pensionary benefits under a beneficial scheme.
M. Venkateswara Rao vs Andhra Bank Represented By Its Chairman ... on 15 March, 2019
26. However, the said decision does not apply to the present case in the
same manner. In Shree Lal Meena, the governing Pension Rules themselves
contained an express forfeiture clause providing that resignation would
entail forfeiture of past service and disentitle the employee from pensionary
benefits. The claim in that case therefore depended upon extending the
scope of the pension rules beyond their express terms. The Supreme Court,
accordingly, reiterated that resignation and voluntary retirement cannot
ordinarily be treated as interchangeable concepts under service law.
The Manager, Reserve Bank Of India vs S. Mani And Ors. on 25 June, 2002
28. The decision relied upon by the Respondents in Reserve Bank of
India v. M.T. Mani is also distinguishable. That case concerned a later
pension package containing specific financial and temporal conditions,
including a prospective cut-off date, which had been consciously accepted
by the employee. The Supreme Court held that an employee who had
voluntarily opted into such a package could not accept its beneficial terms
while selectively challenging its adverse conditions. In the present case,
however, the Petitioner does not seek to selectively assail a consciously
accepted package deal. Her claim arises under the original text of the 2009
Medical Attendance Rules themselves, and the Respondents rely upon an
amendment whose validity and approval by the competent authority remain
unestablished. The principle against approbation and reprobation therefore
has no application in the facts of the present case.
1