Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.52 seconds)Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
U.P. Raghavendra Acharya And Ors vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 12 May, 2006
In U.P. Raghavendra Acharya & others vs. State of
Karnataka & others, (2006) 9 SCC 630, the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that pension is not a bounty and it is treated to be a deferred salary.
Pepsu Road Transport Corp., Patiala vs Mangal Singh & Ors on 12 May, 2011
In Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mangal
Singh & others (2011) 11 SCC 702, the Hon'ble Apex Court
observed that although pension is not a bounty but is claimable as a
matter of right, yet the right is not absolute or unconditional. The
relevant para of the judgement reads as under:-
State Of Punjab vs Iqbal Singh And Ors on 10 May, 1991
State of Bihar 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 anyone's discretion. It is only for the
purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to
service and other allied matters 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
::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2022 20:33:58 :::CIS
16
the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab
v. Iqbal Singh."
Secretary Mahatama Gandhi Mission & Arn vs Bhartiya Kamgar Sena And Ors on 5 January, 2017
In Secretary Mahatama Gandhi Mission and another
vs. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena and others, (2017) 4 SCC 449, it was
held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even the recommendations of
pay commission are not binding on the Government of India. They are
::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2022 20:33:58 :::CIS
20
meant for administrative guidance. The Government of India may
reject or accept the recommendations either fully or partly. The
.
D.R. Nim, I. P. S vs Union Of India on 5 January, 1967
"Whenever the Government or an authority, which
can be held to be a State within the meaning
of Article 12 of the Constitution, frames a scheme
for persons who have superannuated from service,
due to many constraints, it is not always possible to
extend the same benefits to one and all,
irrespective of the dates of superannuation. As such
any revised scheme in respect of post- retirement
benefits, if implemented with a cut-off date, which
can be held to be reasonable and rational in the
light of Article 14 of the Constitution, need not be
::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2022 20:33:58 :::CIS
26
held to be invalid. It shall not amount to "picking out
a date from the hat, as was said by this Court in the
case of D.R. Nim "V. Union of India in connection
.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation ... on 22 February, 2021
In Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another
Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation Retired Employees
Union, (2021) 4 SCC 502, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the
financial constraint pleaded by the Government was a valid ground for
fixation of cut off date. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as
under:-
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Amar Nath Goyal & Ors on 11 August, 2005
01.01.2006, then the estimated liability of Rs.350/- crore will fall on
the State exchequer, which would be a huge burden on the State
finances. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, it is well within the State Government jurisdiction to
allow the financial benefits from a specific cut off date keeping in view
the financial position of the State. Hence, the cut off date fixed as
01.04.2013 in the Office Memorandum dated 21.05.2013 by the
appellants-State cannot be said to be arbitrary and discriminatory
and, in our opinion, the same has been fixed on a very valid ground,
i.e. the financial constraints and as such, the learned Single Judge
had erred in quashing the Office Memorandum dated 21.05.2013 to
the effect that it makes orders effective w.e.f. 01.04.2013 and in
ordering that revised pension in terms of the said Office Memorandum
::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2022 20:33:58 :::CIS
34
would be payable to the respondents-petitioners w.e.f. 01.01.2006
alongwith arrears.
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs R, Veeraswamy And Ors on 26 March, 1999
The attempt to classify them into separate
classes/groups for the purpose of pensionary
benefits was not founded on any intelligible
dirrerentia, which had a rational nexus with the
object sought to be achieved. However, it must be
noted that even in cases of pension, subsequent
judgments of this Court have considerably watered
down the rigid view taken in D.S. Nakara1 as we
::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2022 20:33:58 :::CIS
30
shall see later in T.N. Electricity Board v.
R.Veerasamy ("Veerasamy"). In any event, this is
not a case of a continuing benefit like pension; it is
.