Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.52 seconds)
Om Prakash Saxena And Another [ Now S/S] vs State Of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. ... on 13 May, 2019
cites
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Amar Nath Goyal & Ors on 11 August, 2005
37. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Amar Nath Goyal (supra) has upheld the cut off date which was introduced on the ground of financial implication. For the sake of convenience, relevant observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court are reproduced as under:-
D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982
29. D.S. Nakara (supra), which is the mainstay of the case of the employees, arose under special circumstances, quite different from the present case. It was a case of revision of pensionary benefits and classifications of pensioners into two groups by drawing a cut-off line and granting the revised pensionary benefits to employees retiring on or after the cut-off date. The criterion made applicable was "being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date". This Court held that for being eligible for liberalised pension scheme, application of such a criterion is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it was both arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. The reason given by the Court was that the employees who retired prior to a specified date, and those who retired thereafter formed one class of pensioners. The attempt to classify them into separate classes/ groups for the purpose of pensionary benefits was not founded on any intelligible differentia, which had a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
Indian Ex-Services League And Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc on 29 January, 1991
43. So far as the relief of treating the petitioners retired on 30.06.2006 is concerned, needless to mention that the petitioners' actual date of superannuation was 31.07.2005 and 31.12.2005. As already discussed above in detail, both the petitioners were granted end of session benefit till the end of session i.e. 30.06.2006. Having continued till the end of academic session consequently the same would not entail extension of date of superannuation till 30.06.2006 as is claimed by the petitioners and thus all pensionary benefits that would accrue to them would only accrue on the basis of last salary drawn by them on the date of their superannuation i.e. 31.07.2005 and 31.12.2005 as per rules [ see -Indian Ex-Services League (supra)]. Consequently even this prayer cannot be granted to the petitioners.
State Government Pensioners' ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 July, 1986
"21. One of the prayers made in these writ petitions is for grant of same Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity to the pre-April 1, 1979 retirees as to the post-April 1, 1979 retirees. A similar claim was rejected by this Court in State Government Pensioners' Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh, on the ground that the claim for gratuity can be made only on the date of retirement on the basis of the salary drawn on the date of retirement and being already paid on that footing the transaction was completed and closed. It could then not be reopened as a result of the enhancement made at a later date for persons retiring subsequently.
Union Of India And Anr vs Sps Vains (Retd.) And Ors on 9 September, 2008
34. Likewise, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SPS Vains (supra) was also a case of discrimination between the pensioners as is the case of K.J.S. Buttar (supra).
Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs N. Subbarayudu & Ors on 26 March, 2008
35. The argument raised by learned State Counsel that financial constraints would be a valid ground for fixation of a cut off date for grant of benefits as has been done with the issue of the Government Order dated 28.02.2007 with prospective effect. Though this ground has not been specifically taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit, as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, yet the said ground has been taken during the course of argument and consequently can very well be considered by a Court of law while deciding the case keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Subbarayudu (supra) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
Dr. (Mrs.) Sushma Sharma Etc. Etc vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 12 March, 1985
9. Now coming to the argument of Sri P.P. Rao that the Regulations bring about an unreasonable classification between similarly placed employees in concerned, we must say that we are not impressed by it. It is not submitted that the Corporation had no power to give retrospective effect to the Regulations. It was within the power of the Corporation to enforce the Regulations either prospectively or with retrospective effect from such date as they might specify. Of course, as repeatedly held by this Court, in such cases the State cannot, as the expression goes, pick a date out of its hat. It has to prescribe the date in a reasonable manner, having regard to all the relevant facts and circumstances. Once this is done, question of discrimination does not arise. Reference in this behalf may also be had to the decision of this Court in Sushma Sharma v. State of Rajasthan , a decision of the Division Bench comprising E.S. Venkataramiah and Sabyasachi Mukherji, JJ. "
State Of West Bengal And Ors. vs Ratan Behari Dey And Ors. on 6 August, 1993
40. Likewise, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ratan Behari Dey (supra) has held as under:-
State Of Bihar And Ors vs Ramjee Prasad And Ors on 11 April, 1990
In fact several decisions of this Court have gone to the extent of saying that the choice of a cut off date cannot be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is given for the same in the counter affidavit filed by the Government, (unless it is shown to be totally capricious or whimsical) vide State of Bihar v. Ramjee Prasad , Union of Indian v. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal (Vide SCC Para 5), Ramrao v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Assn. (Vide SCC Para 31), University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary etc. It follows, therefore, that even if no reason has been given in the counter affidavit of the Government or the executive authority as to why a particular cut off date has been chosen, the Court must still not declare that date to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 unless the said cut off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result."