Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.31 seconds)Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Air India Etc. Etc vs Nergesh Meerza & Ors. Etc. Etc on 28 August, 1981
8. The impugned circulars of the respondent-BBMB are
liable to be quashed to the extent they required the
widow/dependents of the deceased employee to refund special
family pension already disbursed and consumed by the widow.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on a case titled as
"Air India v. Nargesh Meerza and another" 1982(1) SLR 117",
4 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 06-10-2019 00:13:09 :::
CWP NO. 14578 OF 2016 -5-
wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that an agreement
between the prospective Air Hostesses and Air India stating that
in the event of becoming pregnant an Air Hostess was required to
discontinue service, was totally unethical and violative of Articles
14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
State Of Punjab And Ors vs Jagjit Singh And Ors on 26 October, 2016
8. Reference may be had to Apex Court judgment in
"State of Punjab and others v. Jagjit Singh and others" 2016 (4)
SCT 641. Compulsions on the part of the unemployed person to
accept employment at whatever wages, and his right to claim
salary in accordance with law after joining service was the issue
therein. Para 55 of the judgment, ibid, is reproduced hereunder:-
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) on 18 December, 2014
11. Even otherwise, applying the analogous principles as
enunciated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in "State of Punjab
and others v. Rafiq Masih" 2015(4) SCC 334, I am of the view
that the conditional compassionate offer made by the
respondents to first make recovery is not sustainable. The
petitioner was under duress and circumstantial coercion to
succumb to recovery demand qua solatium/special family
pension. Such a conditional offer, therefore, is not sustainable in
the eyes of law. But as discussed in preceding paragraphs, the
petitioners cannot avail twin benefit of their husband/father
having died in harness, they are either entitled to solatium or
compassionate appointment. To that extent, therefore, the
6 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 06-10-2019 00:13:09 :::
CWP NO. 14578 OF 2016 -7-
condition of respondent-BBMB asking for refund of solatium along
with interest is justified. Even though 12% interest seems to be
unreasonable. The said question is, however, left open to be
decided in appropriate proceedings.
Section 23 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
1