Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.24 seconds)The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977
Section 2 in The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 [Entire Act]
Vasant Gangaramsa Chandan vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 15 July, 1996
He relied upon the decisions
of the Apex Court in the cases of M.G.Pandke v. Municipal Council of
Hinganghat2; State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay K. Nimje 3; Vasant
Gangaramsa Chandan v. State of Maharashtra4; Rai Sahib Ram
Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab 5; State of Maharashtra v.
M.P.Vashi6 and Secretary, Sh APD Jain Pathshala and others v.
Shivaji Bhagwat More and others7. He submitted that the teaching and
non-teaching staff in recognized schools and junior colleges which were
even partially aided as on 31 st October 2005 will not be governed by the
New Pension Scheme and they will be governed by the Old Pension
Scheme.
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur And Ors. vs The State Of Punjab on 12 April, 1955
He relied upon the decisions
of the Apex Court in the cases of M.G.Pandke v. Municipal Council of
Hinganghat2; State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay K. Nimje 3; Vasant
Gangaramsa Chandan v. State of Maharashtra4; Rai Sahib Ram
Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab 5; State of Maharashtra v.
M.P.Vashi6 and Secretary, Sh APD Jain Pathshala and others v.
Shivaji Bhagwat More and others7. He submitted that the teaching and
non-teaching staff in recognized schools and junior colleges which were
even partially aided as on 31 st October 2005 will not be governed by the
New Pension Scheme and they will be governed by the Old Pension
Scheme.
State Of Maharashtra vs Manubhai Pragaji Vashi & Ors on 16 August, 1995
He relied upon the decisions
of the Apex Court in the cases of M.G.Pandke v. Municipal Council of
Hinganghat2; State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay K. Nimje 3; Vasant
Gangaramsa Chandan v. State of Maharashtra4; Rai Sahib Ram
Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab 5; State of Maharashtra v.
M.P.Vashi6 and Secretary, Sh APD Jain Pathshala and others v.
Shivaji Bhagwat More and others7. He submitted that the teaching and
non-teaching staff in recognized schools and junior colleges which were
even partially aided as on 31 st October 2005 will not be governed by the
New Pension Scheme and they will be governed by the Old Pension
Scheme.
The Society Of St. Mary'S School & ... vs The Pune Zilla Parishad & Others on 24 December, 2013
Neither the MEPS Act nor the MEPS Rules contain definition of "grant-
in-aid" or "grant". On this aspect, reliance was placed on the decision of
the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Society of St.Mary School
(supra). In the said decision, this Court considered the meaning of "aid"
or "grant" under the provisions of the RTE Act in the context of clause
Padmausundara Rao (Dead) &Ors vs State Of T.N. & Ors on 13 March, 2002
8. He submitted that there is no scope to read the word aid
used in Rule 2(b) or Rule 19 of MEPS Rules as "fully aided" or "100%
aided". He submitted that the legislature has advisedly not made a
distinction between partially aided schools and fully aided schools. He
placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Padmasundara Rao (Dead) and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and
others9. He submitted that the law is crystal clear that the Court cannot
read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and
unambiguous. Inviting our attention to the Old Pension Scheme and the
New Pension Scheme, he pointed out that the Old Pension Scheme was
more advantageous to the employees.
Homraj Hansaram Bisen vs State Of Maharashtra on 20 November, 2012
(emphasis added)
In view of the aforesaid statement made by the learned counsel
appearing for the State Government, on instructions, the controversy in
these petitions has been narrowed down to some extent. The question
involved in these petitions is whether the teaching and non-teaching
employees recruited in aided primary, secondary and higher secondary
schools as well as in colleges of education who were appointed on or
before 31st October 2005 will be governed by the New Pension Scheme
under the GR of 2005 on the ground that as on 1st November 2005, the
::: Uploaded on - 01/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2018 01:34:49 :::
SKN 11/30 8387.13-wp--.doc
concerned schools and colleges were not receiving 100% aid. From the
statement of the learned senior counsel for the State, it appears that in
case of teaching and non-teaching employees who were appointed on or
before 31st October 2005 in institutions which were 100% aided on or
before the said date will be entitled to the benefit of the pension scheme
under the Pension Rules (for short "Old Pension Scheme"). An inference
can be drawn from the aforesaid statement that according to the State
Government, the employees who were working in aided institutions
which were not getting 100% grant on 31 st October 2005 will not be
governed by the Old Pension Scheme and they will be entitled to the
benefits of the New Pension Scheme when the said institutions become
100% aided after 31st October 2005. The real issue to be decided is
whether to the employees who were appointed on or before 31 st October
2005 in institutions which were not getting 100% aid or in institutions
which were unaided, the Old Pension Scheme or the New Pension
Scheme will apply. The main submission of the learned senior counsel
representing the State Government is that the aforesaid question which
is required to be decided in this group of petitions is no longer res
integra and the same has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Homraj Hansaram Bisen and others v. State of
Maharashtra and others1. It is in the light of the above controversy
that a brief reference has to be made to the contentions raised across the
bar.
Pepsu Road Transport Corp., Patiala vs Mangal Singh & Ors on 12 May, 2011
He relied upon the decisions of
the Apex Court in the cases of D.S.Nakara and others v. Union of
India10 and Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. Mangal Singh and
others11.