Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)
R. Thangavelu vs The Government Of India Represented By ... on 16 December, 1993 cites

R. Narayanan vs Union Of India And Anr on 25 October, 1989

30. A writ appeal was filed by one freedom fighter by name K. Murugaiyan against the order of Mr. Srinivasan, J. in W.P. No. 10014 of 1992 dated 10.8.1992. The writ appeal was heard and decided by K. Venkataswami, J. and K. Swamidurai, J. on 22.6.1993. The learned Judges of the Division Bench after considering the relevant materials placed before them, have allowed the writ appeal after following the Supreme Court verdict in R. Narayanan v. Union of India .
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 21 - N D Ojha - Full Document

Surja And Others vs Union Of India And Anr on 13 September, 1991

28. The next decision cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is reported in Surja v. Union of India . The learned Chief Justice speaking for the Bench and while considering the claim of the persons who had participated in Arya Samaj Movement and suffered minimum six months imprisonment, has observed that if the petitioners suffered the minimum sentence of six months imprisonment on account of their participation in the Arya Samaj Movement, they would be entitled to pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. While deciding the issue, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 19 - R B Misra - Full Document

D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982

23. Many judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court, our High Court and also of the other High Courts were cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of their case. The decision reported in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India , has been cited to show that the sanction of pension creates a vested right on the person and it is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending on the sweet will of the employer. The Supreme Court in the above decision held that the pension is not an ex-gratia payment but it is a payment for the past service rendered and that it is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the heyday of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in the lurch. The Supreme Court while answering the question as to whether the petitioners before the Supreme Court are entitled to receive the superannuation or retiring pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, forming a class as a whole, has made the above observation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 2485 - D A Desai - Full Document

Surksh Chandra Chiman Lal Shah vs Union Of India And Ors. on 14 February, 1975

34. The next decision cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is reported in Sukh Lal v. Union of India , wherein a Division Bench while considering the claim for freedom fighters pension, upheld the contention of the petitioner. In the said case, the claim was rejected on 28.1.1984 on the ground that there was paucity of proof in support of the claim preferred by the petitioner. It is seen from the said order that the State of Himachal Pradesh had recommended the case of the petitioner on the basis of the recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner of the area concerned. The Division Bench observed that there was no reason to disbelieve the version of the petitioner that his externment was on the basis of oral orders since the Bench has accepted this kind of plea in many other similar cases as well. Further, the petitioner has produced certificates of Kahna Ram, a freedom fighter and Tamar Pattar Holder and receiver of this pension from the Centre. In view of the contents of the certificate, the Bench held that it was not possible to accept the contention of the counsel for the respondents that the freedom fighter could not know about the externment of the petitioner when he himself was in jail. In paragraphs 6 and 7, the Bench has observed as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 22 - Y Dayal - Full Document

Mukund Lal Bhandari And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 May, 1993

The petitioners concerned, whose claims are ultimately sustained in the light of the above orders, shall be entitled to be paid with effect from the date of the respective applications or with effect from the respective dates indicated in the individual orders, concerned, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Mukund Lai Bhandari v. Union of India . There will be no order as to costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 193 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Tamil Nadu Freedom Fighters ... vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 19 November, 1991

31. The decision rendered by one of us (D.Raju, J.) and reported in Tamil Nadu Freedom Fighters Association v. Government of Tamil Nadu 1993 Writ L.R. 694 was also cited before us. The said writ petition was filed to order payment of pension from the State Funds to those drawing Central Pension alone at Rs. 250 per mensem from 1.8.1992 onwards and to those drawing State Pension of Rs. 100 per mensem, a further sum of Rs. 150 per mensem as additional pension from 1.8.1992 onwards and to order payment of medical allowance of Rs. 15 per mensem to those freedom fighters who have been paid from 1.8.1990 onwards. After referring to the salient features of G.O.Ms. No. 1825, Transport Department, dated 6.4.1990, G.O.Ms. No. 3658, Transport Department, dated 21.1.1992 and G.O.Ms. No. 877, Public (Political Pension II) Department, dated 9.8.1992, this Court has observed as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1