Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.42 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Deokinandan Prasad vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 4 May, 1971
13. A Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Deokinandan
Prasad Vs. State of Bihar", 1971(2) SCC 330, held that pension is not a bounty
of the State and is rather a valuable right. The relevant portion of the aforesaid
judgment is reproduced as under:-
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ranojirao Shinde & Anr on 21 March, 1968
32. This Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ranojirao Shinde
and another, 1968-3 SCR 489 had to consider the question
whether a "cash grant" is "property" within the meaning of that
expression in Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. This
Court held that it was property, observing "it is obvious that a
right to sum of money is property".
State Of Kerala And Ors vs M. Padmanabhan Nair on 17 December, 1984
14. Thereafter, in "State of Kerala Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair", AIR
1985 Supreme Court 356, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that pension
and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its
employees on their retirement but are valuable rights and property, in their
hands.
Dr. Uma Agarwal vs State Of U.P. & Another on 22 March, 1999
The aforesaid authoritative law was thereafter reiterated by the Hon'ble
9 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 01:49:08 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147975
CWP-23961-2017(O&M) -10-
Supreme Court in "Dr. Uma Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. and another", 1999(2)
SCT 347 (SC).
State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr on 14 August, 2013
15. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in another authoritative
judgment passed in "State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Jitendra Kumar
Srivastava and another", 2013(12) SCC 210 again discussed the entire law
pertaining to the valuable rights pertaining to the grant of pensionary benefits.
Para Nos.8 and 16 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-
D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982
"8. It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not the
bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long,
continuous, faithful and unblemished service. Conceptually it is so
lucidly described in D.S. Nakara and Ors. Vs. Union of India;
(1983) 1 SCC 305 by Justice D.A. Desai, who spoke for the Bench,
in his inimitable style, in the following words:
Devaki Nandan Prasad vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 22 April, 1983
20. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty a
gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or
10 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 01:49:08 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147975
CWP-23961-2017(O&M) -11-
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 Deoki Nandan Prasad v.
State of Bihar and Ors. [1971] Su. S.C.R. 634
wherein this Court 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
any one'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.
State Of Punjab And Anr vs Iqbal Singh on 12 February, 1976
This view was
reaffirmed in State of Punjab and Another Vs. Iqbal
Singh(6)".