Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.40 seconds)
K.R. Chamayya vs Accountant General For Karnataka on 4 August, 1994 cites

The Municipal Council, Salem ... vs B. Gururajah Rao on 5 October, 1934

'It is clear to me that commutation money stands on an entirely different ground from pension money, and that if an officer commutes his pension for a capital sum paid down, the rules which apply to pension money and make any assignment of it void, do not apply to this sum.' Following the dictum of Coleridge, C.J., Besley, C.J. and King, J. in Municipal Council, Salem v. B. Gururajah Rao, AIR 1935 Mad 249, held that when pension or portion thereof is commuted, it ceases to be pension and becomes a capital sum. The question in that case was whether the commuted portion of the pension of a retired Subordinate Judge was income for the purposes of assessment of professional tax under Section 354 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920. The learned judges held that where pension is commuted there is no longer any periodical payment; the pensioner receives once and for all a lump sum in lieu of the periodical payments. The pension is changed into something else and becomes a capital sum. On that view they held that the sum received by the retired Subordinate Judge in lieu of the portion of his pension when it was commuted was no longer pension and therefore not liable to pay a professional tax under Section 354 of the Madras District Municipalities Act. That is to say, the commuted portion of the pension was not income for purposes of assessment of professional tax in a municipality......"
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Deokinandan Prasad vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 4 May, 1971

24. Sri Gopal Hegde sought to rely upon the Decision in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, in which the Supreme Court has affirmed that the right to pension flows from Rules and not the order granting the pension. The grant of pension does not depend upon an order being, passed by the authorities to that effect. It may be that for the purposes of quantifying the amount, having regard to the period of service and other allied matters, it may be necessary for the authorities to pass an order to that effect, but the right to receive pension flows to an officer not because of the said order but by virtue of the Rules. The right to receive pension being property within Article 31(1), it is held that the State has no power by an executive order to withhold the same. The said case pertains to the claim of a retired pensioner who was undoubtedly entitled to his pension as a vested right and it is not with reference to a case of a Government servant on re-employment after retirement. As such, the said case has no application to the question involved in the instant case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 429 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document
1   2 3 Next