Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)
State Of West Bengal vs Monotosh Roy And Anr on 9 December, 1998 cites

D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982

11. Much reliance is placed on the decision in D. S. Nakara v. Union of India, [1983] 1 SCC 305. That was a case in which the Central Government liberalised the formula for computation of pension but made it applicable to Government servants who were in service on March 31, 1979 and retired from service on or after the specified date. This Court struck down the said classification and held that the liberalised formula was applicable to all the pensioners whether they retired before or after the specified date. That principle cannot apply in the present case where the pension benefits have been fixed on the basis of the revised pay structure to those members who are in service on 1.1.1986.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 2485 - D A Desai - Full Document

All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers ... vs Union Of India And Others on 10 December, 1991

In all India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association and Ors, v. Union of India & Anr., [1992] Supp 1 SCC 664 a Bench of this Court distinguished the judgment in Nakara and pointed out that it is for the Government to fix a cut-off date, in the case of introducing a new pension scheme. The Court negatived the claim of the persons who had retired prior to the cut-off date and had collected their retrial benefits from the employer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 761 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Union Of India vs P.N.Menon on 17 March, 1994

A similar view was taken in Union of India v. P.N. Menon and Ors., [1994] 4 SCC 68.ln State of Rajasthan v. Amrit Lal Gandhi & Ors., JT (1997) 1 SC 421 the ruling in P.N. Menon's case (supra) was followed and it was reiterated that in matters of revising the pensionary benefits and even in respect of revision of scales of pay a cut-off date on some rational or reasonable basis has to be fixed for extending the benefits.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 136 - N P Singh - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan And Anr vs Amrit Lal Gandhi & Ors on 10 January, 1997

A similar view was taken in Union of India v. P.N. Menon and Ors., [1994] 4 SCC 68.ln State of Rajasthan v. Amrit Lal Gandhi & Ors., JT (1997) 1 SC 421 the ruling in P.N. Menon's case (supra) was followed and it was reiterated that in matters of revising the pensionary benefits and even in respect of revision of scales of pay a cut-off date on some rational or reasonable basis has to be fixed for extending the benefits.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 99 - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Anr vs Jogendra Singh & Anr on 28 November, 1997

In State of U.P. v. Jogendra Singh & Anr.. [1998] 1 SCC 449 a Division Bench of this Court held that liberalised provisions introduced after employee's retirement with regard to retiral benefits cannot be availed of by such employee. In that case the employee retired voluntarily on 12.4.1976. Later on the statutory rules were amended by Notification dated 18.11.1976 granting benefit of additional qualifying service in case of voluntary retirement. The Court held that the employee was not entitled to get the benefit of the liberalised provision which came into existence after his retirement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

V. Kasturi vs Managing Director, State Bank Of India, ... on 9 October, 1998

14. The present case will be governed squarely by the last two rulings referred to above. We have no doubt whatever that the first respondent is not entitled to the relief prayed for by him in the Writ Petition. The Division Bench of the High Court was, therefore, in error in granting a part of the prayer of the first respondent. Hence, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Division Bench is set aside and the Judgment of the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court dated 10.7.1992 dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent herein is restored. There will be no order as to costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 130 - M J Rao - Full Document
1