Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.84 seconds)
U.P. Raghavendra Acharya And Ors vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 12 May, 2006 cites

D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982

"In our view the aforesaid para does not in any way support the contention of the respondents. On the contrary, on parity of reasoning, we would also reiterate that let us be clear about this misconception. Firstly, the Pension Scheme including the liberalised scheme available to the employees is non-contributory in character. Payment of pension does not depend upon Pension Fund. It is the liability undertaken by the Company under the Rules and whenever becomes due and payable, is to be paid. As observed in Nakara case (1983 (1) SCC 305), pension is neither a bounty, nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer, nor an ex gratia payment. It is a payment for the past services rendered. It is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the heyday of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in the lurch. Maybe that in the present case, the trust for Pension Fund is created for income tax purposes or for smooth payment of pension, but that would not affect the liability of the employer to pay monthly pension calculated as per the Rules on retirement from service and this retirement benefit is not based on availability of Pension Fund. There is no question of pensioners dividing the Pension Fund or affecting the pro rata share on addition of new members to the Scheme. As per Rule 1 quoted above, an employee would become a member of the Fund as soon as he enters into a specified category of service of the Company. Under Rule 8, trustees may withhold or discontinue a pension or annuity or any part thereof payable to a member or his dependants, and that pension amount is non-assignable. Further, the payment of pension was the liability of the employer as per the Rules and that liability is required to be discharged by the Union of India in lieu of its taking over of the Company. The rights of the employees (including retired) are protected under Section 11 of the Burmah Oil Company [Acquisition of Shares of Oil India Limited and of the Undertakings in India of Assam Oil Company Limited and the Burmah Oil Company (India Trading) Limited] Act, 1981."
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 2485 - D A Desai - Full Document

Transmission Corpn., A.P. Ltd. & Ors vs P. Ramachandra Rao & Anr on 17 April, 2006

It is one thing to say that the State can fix a cut off date unless and until the same is held to be arbitrary or discriminatory in nature, the same would be given effect for carrying out the purpose for which it was fixed.. In this case, the cut-off date for all intent and purport had been fixed as 1.1.1996. It is, thus, not a case where cut-off date was fixed as 1.4.1998 as the State merely intended to confer only same benefits. It is, thus, also not a case like Transmission Corporation, A.P. Ltd. vs. P. Ramachandra Rao & Anr. [2006 (4) SCALE 362}, where a section of the employees were excluded from being given the benefit of revised pension as they had retired prior to the cut-off date.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 136 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1