Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.17 seconds)
G Lakshmi vs M/O Railways on 5 September, 2023 cites

Mahinder Dutt Sharma vs U.O.I & Ors on 11 April, 2014

"5. On 14-08-2014, the appellant submitted a representation before the Director of General, CISF (respondent No.2) and requested sanctioning of compassionate allowance. The said representation was also rejected as per order dated 15-12-2014. The appellant, thereafter, filed W.P(C) No.7653/2015 before this Court, challenging the order rejecting his request for compassionate allowance. By judgment dated 28-06-2016 in W.P(C) No.7653/2015, this Court set aside the order of rejection passed by the official respondents and directed them to consider the representation submitted by the appellant in the light of the directions contained in the judgment of the Apex Court in Mahinder Dutta Sharma v. Union of India [(2014) 11 SCC 654].
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 116 - J S Khehar - Full Document

S.K.Mastan Bee vs The General Manager, South Central ... on 4 December, 2002

"9. ..........In the present case, it could be seen on perusal of the records that the competent authority has not passed any order with regard to grant of compassionate allowance. In letter dated 12.06.2000 (Annexure A/2), it is stated that there should be no need to wait for a formal request to be made by the Railway servant who was removed or dismissed. If timely action is taken in such cases, payment of compassionate grant and /or allowance where sanctioned by the competent authority can be made within two months of removal/dismissal. Thus, it was obligatory on the part of respondent to settle all dues admissible to the applicant within two months from the date of removal of the applicant. The applicant was removed from service and thereby his pension and gratuity had been forfeited. A compassionate allowance sanctioned is purely for the reason of sustaining the livelihood of the applicant. The applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Mastan Bee vs. General Manager South Central Railway and Another 2003 SCC (L&S) 93 has held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 144 - Full Document

Ramesh Kumar Singh vs Union Of India And Ors on 23 August, 2012

In the case of Ramesh Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4342, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has relied upon another decision in Ex.Ram Niwas Vs. Union of India 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4225 to hold that compensation pension is not related to any length of service rendered and it is to be paid if a government servant is discharged owing to a permanent post being abolished and the quantum is relatable to the years of service rendered. It was further held that Compassionate Allowance is referable to Compensation Pension, pension has no concern to a minimum number of years served but is payable with reference to the number of years of service rendered and if the financial condition of the government servant is a matter of special consideration, it has to be considered by the competent authority.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 4 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Ex Const. Ram Niwas vs Uoi & Ors. on 16 August, 2012

Ram Niwas (supra), this Court had dealt with a case where the respondent/BSF had contended that petitioner therein had joined service in April 1988 and pensionable service being 20 years and petitioner being dismissed from service on June 22, 1998, was not entitled to any compassionate allowance, the Court had held that the Compassionate Allowance is referrable to Compensation Pension, which has no concern to a minimum number of years served but is payable with reference to the number of years of service rendered and directed the competent authority to consider if the case of government servant deserved any special consideration."
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Dhanna Singh vs Western Railway Mumbai on 8 October, 2020

12. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon the order passed by co-ordinate Bench Jabalpur in OA 201/00218/2019 in the matter of Dhanna Vs. UOI Western Railway and others vide its order dated 20.01.2023 considered the objection raised on the limitation in the light of the Rule 65 of Railway Service pension Rules 1993 for pension / family pension claim relying upon the various orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and observed thus:
Central Information Commission Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Attar Singh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 15 January, 2013

Further in the case of Attar Singh vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. 2013 SCC OnLine Del 192, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that the petitioner who had joined service in 13 OA No.310/01244/2016 Delhi Police on February 15, 1989 and the penalty of removal from service was inflicted upon him on June 8, 1998, had permitted the petitioner to seek compassionate allowance from the competent authority while holding that Rule 41 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 permits compassionate allowance to be sanctioned to a government servant who is dismissed or removed from service, which amount if sanctioned cannot exceed 2/3rd of the pension admissible if the government servant was retired on compensation pension. Further held that Rule 39 of the Rules provide for compensation pension and the said rule do not have any minimum qualifying service. In Ex. Const.
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - P Nandrajog - Full Document
1