Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.25 seconds)The Companies Act, 1956
M. Raja vs Ceeri Educational Society Pilani & Anr on 31 October, 2006
(See : K.S. Krishnaswamy vs. Union of India and
another,
[AIR 2007 SC (Sup) 1756)
18 In the case of M Raja vs. Ceeri Educational
Society Pilani [2006(12) SCC 636], the appellant had
joined the services in the respondent - School on
30.04.1997. The Fifth Central Pay Commission revised
the scale of pay with effect from 01.01.1996 pursuant
whereto the appellant claimed that he was entitled to the
scale of pay Rs.5500-9000, whereas he was put in the
pay scale of Rs.5000-8000. The recommendations of the
Fifty Central Pay Commission, however, were applied by
the respondent with effect from 01.07.1999. The
appellant moved the Rajasthan Non-Government
Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur, on the premise
that the respondents were bound to protect his scale of
Page 16 of 25
HC-NIC Page 18 of 27 Created On Thu Apr 28 03:16:27 IST 2016
18 of 27
C/SCA/12483/2015 ORDER
pay as promised by the respondents. The Tribunal
allowed the said application in part holding the appellant
to be entitled to pay as per the recommendations of the
Fifth Central Pay Commission with effect from the date of
appointment and directing the respondents to calculate
the amount of difference and pay the same to him within
three months. A writ petition filed by the respondents
thereagainst was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of
the High Court. The respondents preferred an intra-court
appeal and the Division Bench allowed the same. In such
circumstances, the appellant had to move the Supreme
Court.
Union Of India vs P.N.Menon on 17 March, 1994
20 In Union of India vs. P.N. Menon and others
[1994 (4) SCC 68)], while implementing the
recommendations of the Third Pay Commission with
regard to the dearness pay linked to the average index
level 272, which was to be counted as emoluments for
pension and gratuity under the Central Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1972, the Central Government had fixed
a certain cut-off date and directed that only those
officers retiring on or after the specified date were
entitled to the benefits of the dearness pay being
counted for the purpose of retirement benefits. This was
challenged as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. The Supreme Court turned down the
challenge and observed: while implementing the
recommendations of the Third Pay Commission with
Page 17 of 25
HC-NIC Page 19 of 27 Created On Thu Apr 28 03:16:27 IST 2016
19 of 27
C/SCA/12483/2015 ORDER
regard to dearness pay linked to average index level 272,
which was to be counted as emoluments for pension and
gratuity under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
1972, the Central Government had fixed a certain cut-off
date and directed that only officers retiring on or after
the specified date were entitled to the benefits of the
dearness pay being counted for the purpose of
retirement benefits. This was challenged as arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme
Court turned down the challenge and observed:
Action Committee South Eastern Railway ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 5 September, 1990
21 In Action Committee South Eastern Railway
Pensioners v. Union of India, [1991 Supp (2) SCC
544], it was held that, on merger of a part of dearness
allowance as dearness pay on average price index level
at 272 with reference to different pay ranges, fixing a
cut-off date in such a manner was not arbitrary and the
principle enunciated in D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India
[(1983) 1 SCC 305] was not applicable.
D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982
24 In State of Punjab and Ors. v. Boota Singh and
Anr.,[(2000) 3 SCC 733], (Boota Singh"), after
considering several judgments of the Supreme Court in
D.S. Nakara (supra) to K.L. Rathee v. Union of
India, [(1997) 6 SCC 7], it was held that D.S. Nakara
(supra) should not be interpreted to mean that the
emoluments of persons who retired after a notified date
holding the same status, must be treated to be the same.
Krishena Kumar And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 July, 1990
In this
connection, the ratios in Krishena Kumar v. Union of
India, [(1990) 4 SCC 207], Indian Ex-Services
League v. Union of India, [[(1991) 2 SCC 104],
State Government Pensioners' Association v. State
Page 18 of 25
HC-NIC Page 20 of 27 Created On Thu Apr 28 03:16:27 IST 2016
20 of 27
C/SCA/12483/2015 ORDER
of A.P., [(1986) 3 SCC 501], and All India Reserve
Bank Retired Officers' Association v. Union of India
[(1992) Supp (1) SCC 664] are apt. In all these cases,
the prescription of a cut-off date for implementation of
such benefits was held not to be arbitrary, irrational or
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Indian Ex-Services League And Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc on 29 January, 1991
In this
connection, the ratios in Krishena Kumar v. Union of
India, [(1990) 4 SCC 207], Indian Ex-Services
League v. Union of India, [[(1991) 2 SCC 104],
State Government Pensioners' Association v. State
Page 18 of 25
HC-NIC Page 20 of 27 Created On Thu Apr 28 03:16:27 IST 2016
20 of 27
C/SCA/12483/2015 ORDER
of A.P., [(1986) 3 SCC 501], and All India Reserve
Bank Retired Officers' Association v. Union of India
[(1992) Supp (1) SCC 664] are apt. In all these cases,
the prescription of a cut-off date for implementation of
such benefits was held not to be arbitrary, irrational or
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers ... vs Union Of India And Others on 10 December, 1991
In this
connection, the ratios in Krishena Kumar v. Union of
India, [(1990) 4 SCC 207], Indian Ex-Services
League v. Union of India, [[(1991) 2 SCC 104],
State Government Pensioners' Association v. State
Page 18 of 25
HC-NIC Page 20 of 27 Created On Thu Apr 28 03:16:27 IST 2016
20 of 27
C/SCA/12483/2015 ORDER
of A.P., [(1986) 3 SCC 501], and All India Reserve
Bank Retired Officers' Association v. Union of India
[(1992) Supp (1) SCC 664] are apt. In all these cases,
the prescription of a cut-off date for implementation of
such benefits was held not to be arbitrary, irrational or
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Jagdip Parmanandbhai Raval & 119 vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 4 December, 2015
8. This Court had an occasion to consider almost an
identical issue in the case of Jagdip Parmanandbhai Raval &
Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. in Special Civil Application
No.4239 of 2012 and allied matters. In the said bunch of writ
applications, the issue was as regards the payment of the
benefits of the 6th Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2009
instead of 01.01.2006. This Court, while rejecting the writ
applications, observed as under;