Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.27 seconds)Union Of India & Anr vs C.S. Sidhu on 31 March, 2010
19. As a result this appeal is allowed and we hold that the appellant is
entitled to grant of War Injury Pension w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The disability
14
element of the Disability Pension shall be commuted as 75% instead of
50% and the appellant will be granted arrears w.e.f. 1.1.1996 with an
interest of 8% per annum. He will also be granted 10 years'
commission service and interest as granted in C.S. Sidhu's case from
the date of his release. The impugned judgment is set aside.
Union Of India And Anr vs Deoki Nandan Aggarwal on 4 September, 1991
11. In our opinion, the restriction of the benefit to only officers who
were invalided out of service after 1.1.1996 is violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution and is hence illegal. We are fortified by the view as
taken by the decision of this Court in Union of India & Anr. vs.
Deoki Nandan Aggarwal 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 323, where it was held
that the benefit of the Amending Act 38 of 1986 cannot be restricted
only to those High Court Judges who retired after 1986.
The State Of Punjab vs Justice .S. Dewan(Retired Chief ... on 25 April, 1997
In State of Punjab vs. Justice S.S. Dewan (1997) 4 SCC 569 it
was held that if it is a liberalization of an existing scheme all pensioners
are to be treated equally, but if it is introduction of a new retrial benefit,
its benefit will not be available to those who stood retired prior to its
introduction. In our opinion the letter of the Ministry of Defence dated
31.1.2001 is only liberalization of an existing scheme.
Union Of India And Anr vs Sps Vains (Retd.) And Ors on 9 September, 2008
In Union of India & Anr. vs. S.P.S. Vains (Retd.) & Ors.
The Amending Act, 1897
1