Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)Krishena Kumar And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 July, 1990
14. Nakara decision came up for consideration before another
Constitution Bench recently in Krishena Kumar v. Union of
India. The petitioners in that case were retired Railway
employees who were covered by or opted for the Railway
Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. It was held that PF
retirees and pension retirees constitute different classes and it
was never held in Nakara that pension retirees and PF retirees
formed a homogeneous class, even though pension retirees
alone did constitute a homogeneous class within which any
further classification for the purpose of a liberalised pension
scheme was impermissible. It was pointed out that in Nakara ,
it was never required to be decided that all the retirees for all
purposes formed one class and no further classification was
permissible.
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The State Of Punjab vs Justice .S. Dewan(Retired Chief ... on 25 April, 1997
In State of Punjab v. Justice S.S. Dewan (Retired Chief Justice ) and
Others8 by way of an amendment, the years put in by a judicial officer as
an advocate prior to his induction in judicial service were to be added for
computing length of service for the purpose of pension. The question was
whether the State was justified in limiting this relief to those who retired
after 22.02.1990.
Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 July, 2000
26. It may also be noted that the decision of the Division Bench of the
Madras High Court having been confirmed by this Court, the matter stands
concluded. As has been observed in paragraphs 32, 41 and 44 of
Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another11, once leave to
appeal had been granted and the appellate jurisdiction of this Court was
invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger. Be
that as it may, we are satisfied that the Bipartite Settlement did not create
any distinction which was inconsistent with the principles laid down by this
Court.
Section 6 in The Banking Companies (Acquisition And Transfer Of Undertakings) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Banking Companies (Acquisition And Transfer Of Undertakings) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982
The ratio of decision in D.S. Nakara (Supra) was
distinguished on the ground that the benefit conferred was a new benefit and
not an upward revision of the existing pension scheme. This Court found
that it was not a case of liberalization of the existing scheme but introduction
of a new retiral benefit and as such the State was justified in making a
8
(1997) 4 SCC 569
30
distinction between the sets of retirees and limiting the benefit to those who
retired after the cut off date. The observations in paragraphs 6 and 7 quoted
hereunder are relevant:
Banking Companies Act, 1949
Indian Ex-Services League And Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc on 29 January, 1991
As held in the case of Indian
Ex-Services League and Others (supra) the decision of this Court in D.S.
Nakara (supra) is one of limited application and there is no scope for
enlarging the ambit of that decision to cover all schemes made by the
39
retirees or a demand for an identical amount of pension irrespective of the
date of retirement. The reliance on the resolutions/circulars issued by
Reserve Bank of India was also misplaced. It is true that the tapering
formula was done away with by Reserve Bank of India but that by itself
cannot entitle the retirees prior to 01.11.2002 either to be conferred the
advantage at the same rate made applicable by Reserve Bank of India or at
the flat rate of 0.24% as was sought to be projected.