Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. vs Ghanshyam Chand Sharma on 5 December, 2019
Though resignation is a bilateral concept, and
becomes effective on acceptance by the competent
authority, yet the general rule can be displaced by express
provisions to the contrary...." 8.1 The law laid down by
this Court in the case of Shree Lal Meena (supra) has
been reiterated by this Court in the subsequent decision in
the case of BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (supra) and in the
subsequent decision, this Court also considered the
observations made in paragraph 26 in Shree Lal
Meena (supra) that while pension schemes do form
beneficial legislation in a delegated form, a beneficial
construction cannot run contrary to the express terms of
the provisions. It is further observed that the issue cannot
be dealt with on a charity principle.
THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
Uco Bank And Ors vs Sanwar Mal on 11 March, 2004
In UCO Bank v. Sanwar Mal (2004) 4 SCC 412: 2004
SCC (L&S) 699], a Division Bench referred to the decision
in Cecil Dennis Solomon [RBI v. Cecil Dennis Solomon,
(2004) 9 SCC 461: 2004 SCC (L&S) 737] and opined thus:
Sheelkumar Jain vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 28 July, 2011
7.5 In the case of Sheelkumar Jain v. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 12 SCC 197, it was laid down
that "the court will have to construe the statutory
provisions in each case to find out whether the termination
of service of an employee was a termination by way of
resignation or a termination by way of voluntary retirement
and while construing the statutory provisions, the court
will have to keep in mind the purposes of the statutory
provisions."
M. Venkateswara Rao vs Andhra Bank Represented By Its Chairman ... on 15 March, 2019
Though resignation is a bilateral concept, and
becomes effective on acceptance by the competent
authority, yet the general rule can be displaced by express
provisions to the contrary...." 8.1 The law laid down by
this Court in the case of Shree Lal Meena (supra) has
been reiterated by this Court in the subsequent decision in
the case of BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (supra) and in the
subsequent decision, this Court also considered the
observations made in paragraph 26 in Shree Lal
Meena (supra) that while pension schemes do form
beneficial legislation in a delegated form, a beneficial
construction cannot run contrary to the express terms of
the provisions. It is further observed that the issue cannot
be dealt with on a charity principle.
Asger Ibrahim Amin vs Life Insurance Corp. Of India on 12 October, 2015
Learned counsel further relied on the Supreme
Court's observations in Asger Ibrahim Amin vs Life
Insurance Corp. Of India (CA No. 10251 of 2014), which
highlights distinct connotations of "superannuation",
"voluntary retirement", "compulsory retirement", and
"resignation" in service jurisprudence. Specifically, the
Hon'ble Supreme court has noted that:
Union Of India vs Amrit Lal Manchanda And Anr on 16 February, 2004
5.1. Placing reliance upon the decision rendered by the
Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Amrit Lal
Manchanda and Anr. (2004) 3 SCC 75, learned senior
counsel for the applicant submitted that the courts should
carefully consider the factual context of each case and not
rely on decisions without discussing their applicability, as
even a single different fact can significantly impact the
conclusion of a case.
Shri Mukul Sanwal vs Union Of India on 14 February, 2019
Learned counsel
6
(C-5, item -67) O.A. No. 363/2020
added that given the applicant's unblemished career and
impeccable record, the rejection of his pensionary benefits
is unjustified and contrary to the judgment in Mukul
Sanwal (supra).
Union Of India vs Abhiram Verma on 30 September, 2021
In Union of India v. Abhiram Verma, 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 845, decided on 30-09-2021, the Apex Court
observed as under :-
1