Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.30 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tilokchand Motichand & Ors vs H.B. Munshi & Anr on 22 November, 1968
The Court referred to its earlier decision in Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi , wherein the Court has stated:
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bhailal Bhai & Ors on 20 January, 1964
This was the principle annunciated by the Supreme Court on earlier occasion also in State of M.P. v. Bhailal
Burhanpur Tapti Mills Ltd. vs Burhanpur Tapti Mills Mazdoor Sangh on 5 November, 1964
In B.T. Mills Ltd. v. Burhanpur Tapti Mills Mazdoor Sangh , Hidayatulla, J. speaking for the Court placed the retiral benefits, gratuity and pension at par in the nature, Court said:
D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982
In D.S. Nakara v. U.O.I. , a Constitution Bench of the Court held denial of rightful claim to pension on irrelevant consideration to be an arbitrary and unreasonable action of the State violating Article 14 of the Constitution, whose reach is to cut at every arbitrary and unreasonable action of the State in all spheres of its activities. In coming to this conclusion, the Court observed while treating the object and history of development of rules providing pensionary benefits that the pension scheme is 'to assure an assured decent living standard in old age' ensuring economic security.