Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.40 seconds)State Of Punjab & Ors vs Amar Nath Goyal & Ors on 11 August, 2005
Although,
in the case of N. Subbarayudu and others (supra) the Supreme
Court has held that the decision rendered in the case of D. S.
Nakara and others (supra) has already been considerably
watered down in the subsequent decision in the case of Amar
Nath Goyal (supra), but this court finds that so far as the case of
Amar Nath Goyal is concerned, this judgement has also been
considered by the Supreme Court in the case of All Manipur
Pensioners Association (supra) in para 7.9. In such
circumstances, the aforesaid decision would also not be of any
avail to the respondents.
Union Of India vs P.N.Menon on 17 March, 1994
Similarly, in the case of P.V. Sreenivasaiah and others (supra),
the other decision relied upon by this Court in the case of Union
of India Vs. P. N. Menon reported as AIR 1994 SC 2221 would
also not be applicable in the light of D.S. Nakara (supra).
D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982
Similarly, in the case of P.V. Sreenivasaiah and others (supra),
the other decision relied upon by this Court in the case of Union
of India Vs. P. N. Menon reported as AIR 1994 SC 2221 would
also not be applicable in the light of D.S. Nakara (supra).
Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs N. Subbarayudu & Ors on 26 March, 2008
Although, it is
admitted that so far as the decision relied upon by this Court in
para 14 in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and
others Vs. N. Subbarayudu and others reported as (2008) 14
SCC 702 has not been considered by the Supreme Court in the
case of All Manipur Pensioners Association (supra). However,
it is submitted that in the aforesaid case, the facts are
distinguishable as it was a case of fixing the cut off dates for the
pension and not for the revision of pension.
Sultan Khan S/O Jugge Khan vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. on 29 October, 1987
The parties are also apprised that in a similar issue,
during the pendency of these review petitions, an
identical petition has been dismissed by the Indore
Bench of this Court in W.P. No.21238/2018 (Sultan
Khan v. State of M.P. & others) on 28.02.2020.‖
(Emphasis supplied)
17] So far as the case of P.V. Sreenivasaiah and others
(supra), it would be germane to refer to the relevant paras 10 to
15 of the same, which read as under:-
Chaudhary Kesava Rao And Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 August, 1990
20] So far as the decision in the case of Chaudhary Kesava
Rao (supra) referred to in para 11 of P.V. Sreenivasaiah and
others (supra) is concerned, in that case itself it has been held
that the decision rendered in the case of D. S. Nakara and others
(supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the
case, and on perusal of the para 6 of the aforesaid decision in the
case of Chaudhary Kesava Rao (supra), it was also revealed
that it refers to two categories of the employees as the age of
superannuation for retirement was increased from 55 years to 58
years with effect from 29.10.1979 and thus, it was not a case of
revision of pension.
N.P. Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2015
6] In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was
earlier posted as Professor and took voluntary retirement in the
month of March, 1986. After his retirement, his pension was
fixed at the rate of Rs.968/- per month. The case of the petitioner
is that vide the Part - I of the impugned order (Annexure P/1)
dated 03.08.2009, as also the order passed on the same date
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 01-07-2024
19:15:14
14
which is mentioned as Part - II of the same order, different
treatment has been given to the persons, who have retired prior to
01.01.2006, and those who retired post 01.01.2006, which has
resulted in considerable prejudice to the petitioner because
according to the petitioner, he should get Rs.23,700/- + D.A. in
pension, whereas he is getting only Rs.12,062/- + D.A., which is
also mentioned in the synopsis filed by the petitioner.
7] Shri Murtuza Bohra - learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that earlier an identical petition W.P. No.18811 of 2023
(Madhya Pradesh (Uccha Siksha) Seva Nivrita Pradhyapik
Sangh, Jabalpur & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and
Ors.) was allowed by this Court at Principal Seat, Jabalpur vide
order dated 18.12.2019.
Indian Ex-Services League And Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc on 29 January, 1991
In Indian Ex-Services League (supra), the
dispute was with respect to PF retirees and Pension retirees and
to that it was held that PF retirees and Pension retirees constitute
different classes and therefore this Court distinguished the
decision of this Court in D.S. Nakara (supra). Therefore, the
aforesaid decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case
on hand at all.
Kunwar Shri Vir Rajendra Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 September, 1969
Counsel has also relied upon
the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of
Kallakkurchi Taluke Retired Officials Association, Tamil
Nadu and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported as (2013) 2
SCC 772 as also the State of Punjab and others Vs. Amar Nath
Goyal and others reported as (2005) 6 SCC 754, and the
decision rendered by Single Bench of Madras High Court in the
case of V. Rajendra Vs. Union of India passed in W.P.
No.17026 of 2015 dated 26.07.2017.