Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982
3. Prescribing differing criteria causes discrimination in the
same category of persons, in this case pre and post 2006 pensioners. The
Apex Court in D.S.Nakra & Others v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305
held that pensioners form a class as a whole and cannot be micro classified
by arbitrary, manipulated and unreasonable eligibility criteria for the
purpose of grant of revised pension. The Apex Court also held that the
words 'who were in service', 'on' or 'after' were words of limitation, denying
equality and declared the same unconstitutional and struck down the same.
R.K. Aggarwal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 December, 2012
7. In O.P.(CAT) No.1767 of 2012 the High Court of Kerala did not find
any reason to interfere as respondent in O.P.(CAT) No.8 of 2014 and the
first respondent in the case are similarly placed as both are pre-2006 central
government retired pensioners affected by VI CPC relief. This stand was
upheld by the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in WP
No.19641 of 2009 in R.K.Aggarwal and others v. State of Haryana and
others. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in its decision dated 21.12.2012
also confirmed that the clear purport and meaning of the recommendations
of the VI CPC as contained in para 5.1.47 accepted by the Government vide
Item No.12 of resolution dated 29.8.2008 is that those who retire before
1.1.2006 as well were ensured that their revised pension after enforcing the
recommendations of the 6th CPC shall not be less than 50% of the minimum
of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale
from which the pensioner had retired.
Union Of India & Ors. vs Vinod Kumar Jain & Anr. on 18 April, 2012
9. The Supreme Court on 7.1.2014 dismissed S.L.P.No.21044 of
2014. The Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8875-8876 of 2011 (Union
of India and others v. Vinod Kumar Jain and others along with C.A.No.1998
of 2012, C.A.No.3564 of 2012, C.A.No.3907 of 2012, C.A.No.4581 of
2012, C.A.No.4952 of 2012, C.A.No.4980 of 2012, C.A.No.4599 of 2013
& C.A.No.1 of 2015 and S.L.P.Nos.36148-36150 of 2013 &
S.L.P.No.16780-16782 of 2014 dismissed the S.L.P on merit citing that no
substantial question of law of general/public importance arises for their
consideration and they saw no reason to interfere with the orders impugned.
1