Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (2.29 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 19 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Ex. Capt. K.C. Arora And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 April, 1984
19. The applicants further submit that vested rights
cannot be taken away retrospectively by
administrative instructions or subsequent policy
changes, and that the respondents' interpretation of
pension rules is self-serving and legally untenable.
Reliance is placed on judicial precedents such as Ex.
Capt. K.C. Arora vs. State of Haryana (1984 SLR
(3) 97), Daljit Singh Narula vs. State of Haryana
(1979 (1) SLR 420), and Surinder Kumar vs.
Union of India (CWP No. 11586/2008), to
contend that even statutory rules cannot operate
retrospectively to the detriment of accrued rights.
Navjyoti Coo-Group Housing Society ... vs Union Of India And Others on 17 September, 1992
27. The Tribunal also takes note of the fact that
Presidential Orders for absorption were issued in
favour of the applicants and they were treated as GPF
subscribers for a considerable period. Such
conferment of status and benefits cannot be said to
be casual or inadvertent, particularly when supported
by relevant policy clarifications dated 02.01.2001 and
16.01.2003. The subsequent attempt of the
respondents to alter the status of the applicants after
an inordinate delay is arbitrary and hit by the
doctrine of legitimate expectation (Navjyoti Coop.
Group Housing Society vs. Union of India,
(1992) 4 SCC 477).
Inder Pal Yadav And Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors Etc on 18 April, 1985
28. The plea of the respondents that the applicants are
not entitled to the benefit of earlier judgments on the
ground that they were not parties thereto cannot be
accepted. It is a settled proposition that similarly
situated persons are entitled to the same relief
(Inder Pal Yadav vs. Union of India, (1985) 2
SCC 648; K.C. Sharma vs. Union of India, (1997)
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.04.27 12:30:58+05'30'
16 (OA No. 060/579/2020)
6 SCC 721). Denial of such benefit would amount to
hostile discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution.
K.C. Sharma & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 July, 1997
28. The plea of the respondents that the applicants are
not entitled to the benefit of earlier judgments on the
ground that they were not parties thereto cannot be
accepted. It is a settled proposition that similarly
situated persons are entitled to the same relief
(Inder Pal Yadav vs. Union of India, (1985) 2
SCC 648; K.C. Sharma vs. Union of India, (1997)
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.04.27 12:30:58+05'30'
16 (OA No. 060/579/2020)
6 SCC 721). Denial of such benefit would amount to
hostile discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution.
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) on 18 December, 2014
29. Further, the contention of the respondents that the
Presidential Orders were issued erroneously and can
be withdrawn at any time is untenable. Once rights
have accrued and have been acted upon over a long
period, the same cannot be withdrawn to the
detriment of the employees (State of Punjab vs.
Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334).
D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982
Pensionary
benefits constitute a valuable right and cannot be
arbitrarily denied (D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India,
(1983) 1 SCC 305).
1