Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 40 (0.24 seconds)Section 19 in Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Dkshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Ors vs Bachan Singh on 30 July, 2009
39) The learned counsel for the respondents in support of their
contention for want of knowledge of the Pension Scheme due to
35
non-service of individual notices relied on the decision of this
Court in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam v. Bachan Singh,
(2009) 14 SCC 793. The said decision is clearly distinguishable
on facts. In that case, the appellant, Haryana State Electricity
Board, had issued instructions dated 23.06.1993 and circular
dated 09.08.1994 in order to provide an option to the employees
for pensionary benefits in lieu of their work charged service
with an express condition of noting of instructions from all the
employees and acknowledging the receipt of the letter. In these
appeals, before us, there is no such condition of noting from the
employees or serving individual notices in the Pension Scheme
or Regulations. Therefore, in our opinion, Bachan Singh's
decision will not assist the respondents.
Union Of India & Anr vs M.M. Sarkar on 8 December, 2009
In Union of
India v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, this Court has :
Section 45 in Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
The Employees’ Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
Section 3 in Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982
"7. ... pension is a right not a bounty or gratuitous
payment. The payment of pension does not depend
upon the discretion of the Government but is governed
by the relevant rules and anyone entitled to the
pension under the rules can claim it as a matter of
right. (Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar 1971
(2) SCC 330, State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh 1976 (2)
SCC 1 and D.S. Nakara v. Union of India 1983 (1)
SCC 305.) Where the Government servant rendered
service, to compensate which a family pension scheme
is devised, the widow and the dependent minors would
equally be entitled to family pension as a matter of
right. In fact we look upon pension not merely as a
statutory right but as the fulfilment of a constitutional
promise inasmuch as it partakes the character of
public assistance in cases of unemployment, old-age,
disablement or similar other cases of undeserved
want. Relevant rules merely make effective the
constitutional mandate."
Krishena Kumar And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 July, 1990
30) In Krishena Kumar v. Union of India (supra) this Court has
held: