Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.38 seconds)
Pratap Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 6 January, 2004 cites

Ram Kumar And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 February, 1991

But the judgment of Apex Court in Ram Kumar's case was reviewed by a Bench of three Judges vide Ram Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India, 1996(1) SLJ 116(SC) which was unfortunately not brought to the notice of Supreme Court while deciding the said subsequent cases supra and therefore the decision cited by the learned Counsel for the respondents including the one quoted therein would be per incurium. The main ground of the review in the said case was that the correct material was not placed before the Hon'ble Court and the respondents themselves issued specific circular for grant of pensionary benefits to such employees. It is the settled position of law that if a decision is reviewed, the review judgment shall prevail over the main judgment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 65 - N M Kasliwal - Full Document

Yashwant Hari Katakkar vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 September, 1994

Equally, in the case of Yashwant Hari Katakkhar (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court of India have been pleased to observe that where somebody is engaged as temporary hand for more than ten years he should not only be regularised but he should be entitled to all pensionary benefits. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, while deciding similar points/issues in Original Application Nos. 843/94, 844/94, 453/94 and 854/94 on 30th day of January, 1995 has been pleased to decide (taking into consideration the decision of the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal) that to fix the pension payable to applicants adding 50% of casual service rendered after completing the initial six month's casual service.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 98 - Full Document

Union Of India Ors vs Rabia Bikaner Etc on 7 July, 1997

23. The issues including judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Rabia Bikaner, 1997(4) SLR 717=1998(1) SLJ 181 (SC), which is relied/quoted by the respondent as one of the ground for rejection of the representation of the applicant (i.e. in A/2), wherein it has been held that a casual labour who has been granted temporary status cannot be allowed in pensionary benefits, have been dealt with in that case. We do not find any necessity to repeat here afresh, the discussion made therein. However, the contents of Para 13 of the said judgment is most relevant and are reproduced as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

State Of Kerala And Ors vs M. Padmanabhan Nair on 17 December, 1984

6. Law is well settled in the case of State of Kerala and Ors. v. M. Padanabhan Nair, AIR 1985 SC 356 that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but are valuable rights and property, in their hands. And employees earns pension in lieu his service rendered to the society during his youth. Retiral benefit is grounded on considerations of State obligation to its citizens who having rendered service during the useful span of life must not be left to penury in their old age. It is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 545 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document
1   2 Next