Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.22 seconds)Section 4 in The Bihar Non-Government Elementary Schools (Taking Over of Control) Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Bihar Non-Government Elementary Schools (Taking Over of Control) Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
State Of Rajasthan vs Sevanivatra Karamchari Hitkari Samiti on 3 January, 1995
According to the State Government, late Ram Krishna Paswan had
opted for triple benefit scheme. The benefit extended was that of
provident fund, gratuity and pension. The said scheme did not provide
for family pension. The scheme for pension was introduced on 7th
June 1976 to the teachers who were in service as on 1st April 1976 or
joined the service thereafter. The teachers who had retired from
service or had died in harness on or before 31st March 1976 were not
entitled to the benefit of pension scheme. Accordingly, the late Ram
Krishna Paswan, or his family for that matter, was not entitled to
family pension. The Bench of this Court relied upon the judgments of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of West Bengal vs.
Ratan Bihari Dey [1994(1) PLJR 33 (SC)], of State of Rajasthan vs.
Seva Nivatra Karmchari Hitkari Samiti [(1995) 2 SCC 117] and of D
S Nakara vs. Union of India [1996(2) PLJR 471] to reject the claim
of the said writ petitioner. The Court held, "we are of the view that
in view of the principles laid down in the judgments of the
Supreme Court, this Writ Petition must be dismissed and it must
be held that the employees retiring prior to April 1, 1976 and
those retiring thereafter were governed by different set of Rules.
It cannot be said that between those governed by the same set of
Rules and being similarly situated, distinction was sought to be
drawn by creating two different classes. At the time when the
husband of the petitioner died, the benefit of Family Pension was
not available to retiring employees such as him. Since the Rules
itself was made applicable with effect from a date much after his
death, the petitioner cannot be granted the benefit under such
Patna High Court LPA No.377 of 2006 dt. 08-09-2014
6/12
Rules entitling her to claim Family Pension. In prescribing the
date of applicability, the State has not acted in an unreasonable or
discriminatory manner."
D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982
According to the State Government, late Ram Krishna Paswan had
opted for triple benefit scheme. The benefit extended was that of
provident fund, gratuity and pension. The said scheme did not provide
for family pension. The scheme for pension was introduced on 7th
June 1976 to the teachers who were in service as on 1st April 1976 or
joined the service thereafter. The teachers who had retired from
service or had died in harness on or before 31st March 1976 were not
entitled to the benefit of pension scheme. Accordingly, the late Ram
Krishna Paswan, or his family for that matter, was not entitled to
family pension. The Bench of this Court relied upon the judgments of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of West Bengal vs.
Ratan Bihari Dey [1994(1) PLJR 33 (SC)], of State of Rajasthan vs.
Seva Nivatra Karmchari Hitkari Samiti [(1995) 2 SCC 117] and of D
S Nakara vs. Union of India [1996(2) PLJR 471] to reject the claim
of the said writ petitioner. The Court held, "we are of the view that
in view of the principles laid down in the judgments of the
Supreme Court, this Writ Petition must be dismissed and it must
be held that the employees retiring prior to April 1, 1976 and
those retiring thereafter were governed by different set of Rules.
It cannot be said that between those governed by the same set of
Rules and being similarly situated, distinction was sought to be
drawn by creating two different classes. At the time when the
husband of the petitioner died, the benefit of Family Pension was
not available to retiring employees such as him. Since the Rules
itself was made applicable with effect from a date much after his
death, the petitioner cannot be granted the benefit under such
Patna High Court LPA No.377 of 2006 dt. 08-09-2014
6/12
Rules entitling her to claim Family Pension. In prescribing the
date of applicability, the State has not acted in an unreasonable or
discriminatory manner."
Smt. Sharda Devi vs Managing Director, Bihar State Housing ... on 18 January, 2000
Following the above
referred judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgments
of this Court in the matter of Smt. Sharda Devi vs. State of Bihar
[1996(2) PLJR 470]; of Sona Devi (supra) and; of Lalita Devi vs.
State of Bihar [1999(3) PLJR 236], the Bench allowed the appeal
preferred by the State of Bihar and dismissed the Writ Petitions filed
by the concerned petitioners.
Lalita Devi And Anr. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 16 August, 1999
Following the above
referred judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgments
of this Court in the matter of Smt. Sharda Devi vs. State of Bihar
[1996(2) PLJR 470]; of Sona Devi (supra) and; of Lalita Devi vs.
State of Bihar [1999(3) PLJR 236], the Bench allowed the appeal
preferred by the State of Bihar and dismissed the Writ Petitions filed
by the concerned petitioners.
Article 31 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Bihar and Orissa Local Self-Government Act, 1885
State Of Bihar And Ors. vs Arya Devi And Ors. on 5 March, 2001
Since the Bench has relied upon the judgments in the
matters of Sona Devi (supra) and Arya Devi (supra), we will first
consider the said judgments. In the matter of Sona Devi [1998(1)
PLJR 668], a similar claim was raised by the petitioner Sona Devi.
According to the said Sona Devi, she was the wife of late Ram
Krishna Paswan. The late Ram Krishna Paswan was a teacher in a
private school. The said school was taken over by the State of Bihar in
Patna High Court LPA No.377 of 2006 dt. 08-09-2014
5/12
1971. The late Ram Krishna Paswan died on 14th October 1975.
Pursuant to the death of Shri Paswan, the petitioner Sona Devi lodged
claim for terminal benefits being the wife of late Ram Krishna
Paswan.