Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.61 seconds)Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India vs P.N.Menon on 17 March, 1994
21. What is noticeable is that the definition of the word 'emoluments' in the 1971 Rules was not amended. As such pension continued to be calculated on the basis of emoluments as defined in the 1971 Rules namely the last pay drawn immediately prior to retirement. The pay of the pre 1986 pensioners was not revised. The Third Pay Commission had given a reason for choosing 1.1.86, as the cut off date. As held in Krishena Kumar v. Union of India (supra) and Union of India v. P.N. Menon (supra) merely because a cut off date is fixed would not make the exercise invalid all though persons in the service immediately before the cut off date would be deprived of the benefit of the revised scales of pay. It would depend upon the relevancy of the consideration underlying the choice of such date. The reason stated by the Third Pay Commission cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrelevant.
Krishena Kumar And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 July, 1990
21. What is noticeable is that the definition of the word 'emoluments' in the 1971 Rules was not amended. As such pension continued to be calculated on the basis of emoluments as defined in the 1971 Rules namely the last pay drawn immediately prior to retirement. The pay of the pre 1986 pensioners was not revised. The Third Pay Commission had given a reason for choosing 1.1.86, as the cut off date. As held in Krishena Kumar v. Union of India (supra) and Union of India v. P.N. Menon (supra) merely because a cut off date is fixed would not make the exercise invalid all though persons in the service immediately before the cut off date would be deprived of the benefit of the revised scales of pay. It would depend upon the relevancy of the consideration underlying the choice of such date. The reason stated by the Third Pay Commission cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrelevant.
K. L. Rathee vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 July, 1997
25. Again in K.L. Rathee v. Union of India and Ors. the case of the petitioner was that following Nakara case he had to be given the same amount of pension as other employees of his rank irrespective of the date of retirement. The Court noted that Nakara did not strike down the definition of 'emoluments' and held that:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 7 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982
This was also that was laid down in Nakara case. It, however, did not lay down that the quantum of emoluments drawn during the last ten months of service of each government employee must be taken to be the same for this purpose... The emoluments have to be calculated according to the government rules in force at the time of retirement of the employees. "
The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Commander Head Quarter, Calcutta vs Capt. Biplabendra Chanda on 5 November, 1996
15. Illustrative of another aspect of the Nakara principle, is the decision in Commander Head Quarter, Calcutta and Ors. v. Biplabendra Chanda, which said that the requirement of equality prescribed by Nakara did not extend to a new retiral benefit but was limited only to an upward revision of an existing benefit. It was held therefore that a person who was not entitled to receive pension on the date of his retirement could not claim a grant of pension because of a subsequent change in the criteria of eligibility for such grant.