Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)P. R. Nayak vs Union Of India on 7 December, 1971
In some what similar circumstances, this
Court has earlier also in the case of Hans Raj Sharma vs.
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others 9Civil
Writ Petition No.152 of 2004, decided on October 29, 2004)
has allowed the writ petition by following the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.R. Naik vs. Union of India, AIR
8 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 20-09-2024 23:21:35 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111128
CWP-16236-2021 (O&M) 9
1972 SC 554. It has been laid down in the aofrementioned
judgment that issuance of charge-sheet for initiation of
departmental enquiry is a sine qua non."
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ranojirao Shinde & Anr on 21 March, 1968
32. This Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ranojirao
Shinde and another, 1968-3 SCR 489 had to consider the
question whether a "cash grant" is "property" within the
meaning of that expression in Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of
the Constitution. This Court held that it was property,
observing "it is obvious that a right to sum of money is
property".
Article 31 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S.R. Bommai And Others Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India And Others Etc. Etc. on 11 March, 1994
"8. It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension
are not the bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint
of his long, continuous, faithful and unblemished service.
Conceptually it is so lucidly described in D.S. Nakara and
5 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 20-09-2024 23:21:35 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111128
CWP-16236-2021 (O&M) 6
Ors. Vs. Union of India; (1983) 1 SCC 305 by Justice D.A.
Desai, who spoke for the Bench, in his inimitable style, in the
following words:
Devaki Nandan Prasad vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 22 April, 1983
20. The antiquated notion of pension being a
bounty a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet
will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right
and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced
through Court has been swept under the carpet by the
decision of the Constitution Bench in Deoki Nandan
Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors. [1971] Su. S.C.R.
634 wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that
pension is a right and the payment of it does not
depend upon the discretion of the Government but is
governed by the rules and a Government servant
coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension.
It was further held that the grant of pension does not
depend upon any one's discretion. It is only for the
State Of Punjab And Anr vs Iqbal Singh on 12 February, 1976
6 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 20-09-2024 23:21:35 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111128
CWP-16236-2021 (O&M) 7
purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to
service and other allied maters that it may be
necessary for the authority to pass an order to that
effect but the right to receive pension flows to the
officer not because of any such order but by virtue of
the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab
and Another Vs. Iqbal Singh(6)".
State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr on 14 August, 2013
7. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in another authoritative
judgment passed in "State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Jitendra Kumar
Srivastava and another", 2013(12) SCC 210 again discussed the entire
law pertaining to the valuable rights pertaining to the grant of pensionary
benefits. Para Nos.8 and 16 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as
under:-
Deokinandan Prasad vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 4 May, 1971
6. Way back in the year 1971, a Constitutional Bench of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar",
1971(2) SCC 330, held that the pensionary benefits etc. are not the bounty
of the State. Earlier Right to Property was a Fundamental Right under
Article 31 of the Constitution of India, however, after 44th Amendment to
the Constitution of India, Right to Property became a Constitutional
Right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India instead of a
3 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 20-09-2024 23:21:35 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111128
CWP-16236-2021 (O&M) 4
Fundamental Right. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is
reproduced as under:-
Hans Raj Chhabra vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ... on 19 September, 2018
In some what similar circumstances, this
Court has earlier also in the case of Hans Raj Sharma vs.
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others 9Civil
Writ Petition No.152 of 2004, decided on October 29, 2004)
has allowed the writ petition by following the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.R. Naik vs. Union of India, AIR
8 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 20-09-2024 23:21:35 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111128
CWP-16236-2021 (O&M) 9
1972 SC 554. It has been laid down in the aofrementioned
judgment that issuance of charge-sheet for initiation of
departmental enquiry is a sine qua non."
1