Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.26 seconds)
Maganlal Haribhai Bavariya vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 5 October, 2015 cites

State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr on 14 August, 2013

6. Having   thus   heard   both   the   sides   and   having  considered the material on record, as is apparent  from   the   record,   the   petitioner   has   on   his  attaining   the   age   of   superannuation   retired   on  August 31, 2014 and the period of 12 months from  the   date   of   superannuation   has   already   passed,  however,   no   amount   of   pension   or   pensionary  benefits have been granted to the petitioner. As  rightly   pointed   out   by   the  learned   counsel  appearing   for   the   petitioner  and   as   is   quite  apparent   from   the   Pension   Rules,   the   entire  process   is   to   be   undertaken   before   a   year   the  employee retires. The respondent is not obliging  Page 6 of 17 HC-NIC Page 6 of 17 Created On Sat Oct 10 00:30:01 IST 2015 C/SCA/15423/2015 ORDER the petitioner by paying him the pension. It is  the   right   of   an   employee,   which   he   earns   after  putting in qualifying years of service. The Apex  Court   has   equated   the   same   with   property   of   an  employee in the case of  State  of   Jharkhand   and   others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another,   (2013)   12   SCC   210.   It   would   be   profitable   to  regurgitate   the   relevant   observations   and  findings   of   the   said   decision,   which   read   as  under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 722 - A K Sikri - Full Document

State Of West Bengal vs Haresh C. Banerjee & Ors on 30 August, 2006

In   State   of   West   Bengal   Vs.   Haresh   C.  Banerjee   and   Ors.   (2006)   7   SCC   651,   this  Court   recognized   that   even   when,   after   the   repeal   of  Article   19(1)(f)  and  Article   31  (1)  of   the   Constitution   vide   Constitution  (Forty­Fourth   Amendment)   Act,   1978   w.e.f.  20th June, 1979, the right to property was   no   longer   remained   a   fundamental   right,   it   was   still   a   Constitutional   right,   as  provided   in  Article   300A  of   the  Constitution.   Right   to   receive   pension   was  Page 13 of 17 HC-NIC Page 13 of 17 Created On Sat Oct 10 00:30:01 IST 2015 C/SCA/15423/2015 ORDER treated   as   right   to   property.   Otherwise,  challenge in that case was to the vires of  Rule   10(1)   of   the   West   Bengal   Services  (Death­cum­­ Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971  which conferred the right upon the Governor  to   withhold   or   withdraw   a   pension   or   any  part thereof under certain circumstances and   the   said   challenge   was   repelled   by   this  Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 104 - Full Document

Uoi vs Lt. Col. O.P. Singh (R) on 18 July, 2014

It was further held that the State cannot by  an   executive   order   curtail   or   abolish  altogether   the   right   of   the   public   servant   Page 9 of 17 HC-NIC Page 9 of 17 Created On Sat Oct 10 00:30:01 IST 2015 C/SCA/15423/2015 ORDER to receive pension. This decision was given  by a learned Single Judge. This decision was   taken   up   in  Letters   Patent   Appeal   by   the  Union of India. The Letters Patent Bench in  its decision in Union of India v. Bhagwant  Singh I.L.R.   1965   Pun   1 approved   the  decision   of   the   learned   Single   Judge.   The  Letters   Patent   Bench   held   that   the   pension   granted   to   a   public   servant   on   his  retirement is "property" within the meaning  of  Article         31(1)   of the Constitution and he  could   be   deprived   of   the   same   only   by   an   authority of law and that pension does not  cease to be property on the mere denial or  cancellation of it. It was further held that   the   character   of   pension   as   "property"
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1