Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 44 (0.36 seconds)
Lilawati Mishra vs The State Of Bihar on 11 May, 2022 cites

Deokinandan Prasad vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 4 May, 1971

20. The antequated notion of pension being a bounty, a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar [(1971) 2 SCC 330 : AIR 1971 SC 1409 : 1971 Supp SCR 634 : (1971) 1 LLJ 557] wherein this Court Patna High Court CWJC No.6852 of 2021 dt.11-05-2022 18/38 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 the rules.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 429 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document

State Of West Bengal vs Haresh C. Banerjee & Ors on 30 August, 2006

39. Emphasizingly, the Hon'ble Supreme has held that Patna High Court CWJC No.6852 of 2021 dt.11-05-2022 17/38 pensionary provisions must be given liberal construction more so as a social welfare measure. It is not a bounty to be dispersed contrary to the rules, but very basis for grant of such pension is to facilitate a retired government employee, live with dignity, in the winter of his life. This fundamental principle must be kept in mind while taking action, depriving benefits which ought not to be done, unreasonably, more so, on technicalities. [V. Sukumaran v. State of Kerala, (2020) 8 SCC 106; State of W.B. v. Haresh C. Banerjee and others, (2006) 7 SCC 651]
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 104 - Full Document

Delhi Transport Corporation vs D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress on 4 September, 1990

In Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress & others, 1991 Supp(1) SCC 600, while dealing with the constitutional validity of Regulation 9(b) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952, enabling the employer to terminate services of the employee by issuance of one month notice or payment in lieu thereof, the Court held that:
Supreme Court of India Cites 205 - Cited by 906 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next