cites: 16735781

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

11. The main thrust of the argument of the respondent is that in D.S. Nakara and others vs. Union of India (AIR 1983 SC 130), the Supreme Court has frowned upon the fixation of an artificial cutoff date, creating two categories of retired pensioners without any rational basis.

Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 2485 - D A Desai - Full Document

Section 58 in The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 127

State Of Punjab & Ors vs Amar Nath Goyal & Ors on 11 August, 2005

18. As observed by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others versus Amar Nath Goyal and others {(2005) 6 SCC 754}, the refrain of D.S. Nakara has been played too often to retain its initial charm, which has been worn thin by subsequent dicta.

Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 348 - B N Srikrishna - Full Document

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs R, Veeraswamy And Ors on 26 March, 1999

In paragraph 29 of its decision in Amar Nath Goyal, the Supreme Court pointed out that subsequent judgments have considerably watered down the rigid view taken in D.S. Nakara, as for example in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board versus R. Veerasamy.

Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 114 - K Venkataswami - Full Document

Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs N. Subbarayudu & Ors on 26 March, 2008

19. Again in Government of Andhra Pradesh and others versus N. Subbarayudu and others {(2008) 14 SCC 702}, the Supreme Court, relying upon Amar Nath Goyal indicated that the rigid view in D.S. Nakara had already been watered down.

Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 261 - Full Document

Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]

Constitution Article Cites 0 - Cited by 122106

Section 28 in The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 27

All Manipur Pensioners' Association ... vs State Of Manipur And Ors. on 24 March, 2005

But it was stipulated that the benefit will be applicable only to those who retired on or after 01.01.1996. This resulted in a higher percentage of pension to those who retired on or after 01.01.1996 and lower percentage of pension to those who retired on or before 01.01.1996. This is why the Supreme Court applied the twin tests for the applicability of Article 14 and invoked the mantra of D.S. Nakara to grant relief. All Manipur Pensioners Association case, like D.S. Nakara, also arose out of a nonstatutory scheme for revision of pension with retrospective effect. Once a nonstatutory scheme is propounded with retrospective effect from a particular date, the choice of that date would naturally become questionable.

Gauhati High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 24 - T N Singh - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results