Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)
P N Shukla vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 October, 2016 cites

B. Vittal Pai vs Syndicate Bank, Manipal on 22 August, 1999

6. The appellant is right and correct that the respondent bank should have issued a show cause notice before reducing his pension and holding that he was not entitled to the benefit of Regulation 26. The opportunity to file a reply and contest the stand of the respondent Bank was required and mandated. However, this ground would not justify allowing the present appeal and restoring or remanding the case to the respondent Bank for fresh LPA 886/2015 Page 2 of 10 consideration. The reason is that Regulation 26 has been examined by the High Court of Karnataka in W.P.(C) 30323/1996, B.Vittal Pai Vs. Syndicate Bank, Manipal, in the decision dated 22nd August, 1999, the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application Nos.
Karnataka High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 3 - P V Shetty - Full Document

State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) on 18 December, 2014

13. On a query being made, counsel for the respondent Bank states no arrears would be recovered. The pension already paid post the retirement of the appellant on 31st March, 2008 should not be recovered, notwithstanding that the pension was paid at an enhanced rate. If any recovery has been made by the respondent bank, the same should be refunded to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is made available to the respondent bank. We have directed and barred the respondents from recovering arrears for two reasons. Firstly, the respondents themselves have not claimed refund of arrears. Secondly, this would be as LPA 886/2015 Page 9 of 10 per the mandate of the Supreme Court in (2015) 4 SCC 334, State of Punjab and Ors. v. Rafiq Masih and Ors.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 7379 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Bank Of Baroda Retired Officers' ... vs Chairman And Managing Director, Bank Of ... on 4 March, 2004

2650/1999 and 1794 and 1844 of 2002, Bank of Baroda Retired Officers' Association and Anr. Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Bank of Baroda and Anr., in the decision dated 4th March 2004, and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No. 10778/1998, H.S. Sodhi Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce in the decision dated 18th August 2004 and the said High Courts have unanimously held that Regulation 26 is prospective in nature and would apply only to newly inducted employees after the Pension Regulations were enforced by the respective banks. At this stage, we would only record that the Regulations of Canara Bank and other nationalised banks are identically worded and on this there is no dispute or lis between the parties.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - R R Tripathi - Full Document

H.S. Sodhi vs Oriental Bank Of Commerce on 18 August, 2004

2650/1999 and 1794 and 1844 of 2002, Bank of Baroda Retired Officers' Association and Anr. Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Bank of Baroda and Anr., in the decision dated 4th March 2004, and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No. 10778/1998, H.S. Sodhi Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce in the decision dated 18th August 2004 and the said High Courts have unanimously held that Regulation 26 is prospective in nature and would apply only to newly inducted employees after the Pension Regulations were enforced by the respective banks. At this stage, we would only record that the Regulations of Canara Bank and other nationalised banks are identically worded and on this there is no dispute or lis between the parties.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - S Kant - Full Document
1