Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (6.41 seconds)D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982
In
order to appreciate the contentions in these writ petitions,
it would be appropriate to first refer briefly to the
decision in D.S. Nakara & Others v. Union of India, [1983] 2
S.C.R. 165.
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India vs Bidhubhushan Malik And Others on 24 April, 1984
Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to certain
decisions which it is unnecessary to consider at length
since they where cited only for reading the Nakara decision
in the manner suggested by petitioners. The decision of
this Court Union of India v. Bidhubhushan Malik and Others,
[1984]3 S.C.C. 95 by which special leave petition was
dismissed against the decision of the Allahabad High Court
reported in AIR 1983 Allahabad 209 is also of little
assistance in the present case. This Court while dismissing
the special leave petition upheld the Allahabad High Court's
view that the liberalised pension became operative under the
High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Act,
1976, from 1.10.1974 and applied to all retired High Court
Judges irrespective of the date of their retirement and
there is no question of payment of arrears of pension for
the period preceding 1.10.1974. We are unable to appreciate
the relevance of this case to support the petitioners' claim
in these writ petitions.
State Government Pensioners' ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 July, 1986
One of the prayers made in these writ petitions is for
grant of same Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity to the pre-
1.4.1979 retirees as to the post-1.4.1979 retirees. A
similar claim was rejected by this Court in State Government
Pensioners' Association and Others v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, [1986]3 S.C.C. 501 on the ground that the claim for
gratuity can be made only on the date of retirement on the
basis of the salary drawn on the date of retirement and
being already paid on that footing the transaction was
completed and closed. It could then not be reopened as a
result of the enhancement made at a later date for persons
retiring subsequently.
Krishena Kumar And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 July, 1990
This concept of gratuity being
different
173
form pension has also been reiterated by the Constitution
bench in krishena Kumar's case. With respect, we are in
full agreement with this view. This claim of the
petitioners also, therefore, fails.
Smt. Poonamal Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 30 April, 1985
We may now deal with the remaining contentions. It Writ
Petition No. 4524 of 1985, one of the reliefs claimed is for
family pension. It has been pointed out by the learned
Solicitor General that provision has been made for the same
by the Government of India (Ministry of Defence) in
memorandum No. F. 6(2)/85/1689/B/D (Pension/Services) dated
8.8.1985 which has been issued in compliance of this Court's
decision in Smt. Poonamal and Others v. Union of India and
Others, [1985] 3 S.C.C. 345). That grievance no longer
survives. Other reliefs claimed in this writ petition by an
ex-serviceman are the same as in other writ petitions.
1