Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.29 seconds)
)The District Elementary Educational ... vs S.Ayyavoo on 16 July, 2015 cites

The Government Of Tamil Nadu And Anr. vs S.V. Paul Jayaraj on 27 July, 2001

35. Judgment of S.V.Paul Jeyaraj's case (cited supra), has been holding the field from 2001 onwards. It has become final. With due respect, submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader is nothing but an indirect attempt to review the reported judgment and the same is not permissible. From the above, it could be deduced that depending upon individual cases, the Government have issued orders, relaxing Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Non-Government Teacher's Pension Rules and granted pensionary benefits to teachers, who have retired or resigned, even after the crucial date.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 25 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document

Deokinandan Prasad vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 4 May, 1971

41. Yet another factor, which requires to be considered is that respondent's son seemed to have sent a representation, seeking relaxation of the condition imposed in G.O.Ms.No.37, for grant of pension. When a matter was pending, before the State Information Commission, Government of Tamil Nadu, in Case No.14689/Investigation/C/2013, dated 20.11.2013, a reply in Letter No.37093/Elementary Education 3(2)/2013, dated 13.12.2013, has been given by the Under Secretary, Public Information Officer, to the State Information Commission that no sooner, proposals are received from the Office of the Deputy Director, Directorate of Elementary Education, Chennai, for relaxation, appropriate orders would be passed as per G.O.Ms.No.37 in accordance with law. It should be further noted that earlier, before the Writ Court, submissions have been made to the effect that proposals dated 27.05.2010 have been sent by the Directorate, and the prayer made in the writ petition was to consider the proposals and pass order. Now in the form of reply to the State Information Commission, the very same reason is given. Considering the age of the respondent, 83 years and the fight for pension, attention of the Government is invited to the judgment in Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1971 2 SCC 330, wherein, it is held that ?pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that, on the other hand, the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in a government servant.?
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 429 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document

Dr. Uma Agarwal vs State Of U.P. & Another on 22 March, 1999

In Dr.Uma Agarwal vs. State of U.P. reported in 1999 (3) SCC 438, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that ?grant of pension is not a bounty but a right of the Government servant. Government is obliged to follow the Rules mentioned in the earlier part of this order in letter and in spirit. Delay in settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. Such delays are occurring ever in regard to family pensions for which too there is a prescribed procedure. This is indeed unfortunate. In cases where a retired Government servant claims interest for delayed payment, the Court can certainly keep in mind the time-schedule prescribed in the Rules/instructions apart from other relevant factors applicable to each case.?
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 419 - M J Rao - Full Document

State Of Kerala vs Padmanabha Pada Nair And Sons on 22 August, 2006

In State of Kerala vs. M.Padmashan Nair, reported in 1985 AIR 356, the Hon'ble Apex Cour held that, ?Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the government to its employees on their retirement but have become under the decisions of the Supreme Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment.?
Kerala High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - C N Nair - Full Document
1