Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.35 seconds)Bhim Singh And Ors. vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 24 July, 1979
In Bhim Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. ((1981) 2 SCC 673) a three-member Bench of the Apex Court held that Government employees moving over to the new department because of certain inducements held out by the Government, cannot go back. In this case, when the employees of the State Government were transferred, they ,were promised that their service conditions will not be adversely affected as can be seen from various provisions quoted above. So, they cannot be put in a disadvantageous situation.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Western Coalfields Ltd vs Special Area Development Authority, ... on 26 November, 1981
On the facts of these cases, what is referred in the order passed in 1965 and 1984 is not a particular provision of Part III, K.S.Rs.; but, law on the subject in general. It is merely referred to or cited. In such cases, the reference is construed to mean that the law is as it reads thereafter including amendments subsequent to the time of adoption. Effect of similar reference of earlier Act in subsequent Act was considered by the Apex Court in the following cases: Western Coalfields Ltd. v. Special Area Development Authority, Korba and Anr. (AIR 1982 SC 697) and Spt.
Special Land Acquisition Officer City ... vs P. Govindan on 10 September, 1976
Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore v. P. Govindan (AIR 1976 SC 2517). Section 37(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 prescribes that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to searches, shall, so far as may be, apply to searches under Section 37.
Ujagar Prints Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 4 November, 1988
Apex Court held in Ujagar Prints v. Union of India and Ors. (AIR 1989 SC 516) that what is meant is that those provisions may be generally followed to the extent possible and so, the argument that then existing provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure were incorporated by pen and ink in Section 37(1) cannot be accepted.
Kerala State Road Transport Corpn vs K.O. Varghese And Ors on 17 April, 2003
Apex Court also noticed that reliefs claimed in the Writ Appeals were not identical. There are two classes of employees in all the Writ Appeals: (1) erstwhile Government employees who were transferred and absorbed by the Corporation and (2) employees who were appointed after the formation of the Corporation. The Apex Court also held that this Court has not considered the question whether application of K.S. Rs. mentioned in the notification dated 22nd March, 1965 was by incorporation or by reference and the effect of letter dated 5th May, 1984. The Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court remanding the matter is reported in K.S.R.T.C. v. Varghese (2003 (2) KLT 706 (SC)).
Union Of India vs P.N.Menon on 17 March, 1994
10. It is well-settled law that in the absence of any legal compulsion when a pension scheme is framed or wage revision or a wage formula is settled, the Corporation or the establishment is entitled to look into various aspects like financial ability, industry-cum-region practice and various other aspects. [See Union of India v. P.N. Menon (AIR 1994 SC 2221) and State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Amrilal Gandhi and Ors. ((1997) 2 SCC 342)). Even when wage revision or pension scheme is framed by Wage Boards, Industrial Tribunals, etc. financial capacity of the employer is one of the essential criteria to be looked into. It is also well-settled law that while preparing pension scheme or a scheme for revision of the pensionary benefits or wages, authorities are entitled to fix a cut off date in the absence of any law or. rule to the contrary. In this case Government effected pensionary revision from a cut off date. Question is whether a different cut off date can be fixed by the Corporation on the facts of this case. We have seen that conditions of the erstwhile Government employees were protected at the time of transfer in view of the orders constituting the Corporation as well as orders passed in 1965 under Section 34 of the Act. No conditions disadvantageous to them can be fixed. Of course, favourable conditions can be given by the Corporation if it chooses so. Since the order dated 5th May, 1984 granting pension incorporating the K.S.Rs. by general reference, the employees directly appointed by the Corporation are also entitled to pension on par with the Government employees. The order issued in 1984 was as per the directions issued under Section 34 of the Act which are binding on the Corporation. Further, order issued by the Corporation in 1984 is unambiguous that it gives pension to its employees as per K.S.Rs. without any direction fixing a cut off date. Learned Counsel for the Corporation submits that they are not questioning the entitlement of revised pension or dearness relief. But, it can put a cut off date in view of the directions of the Government dated 24th September, 1992, 16th June, 1995, 3rd January, 1996, etc. notwithstanding the order passed under Section 34 on 22nd March, 1965 and the order dated 5th May, 1984.
Grid Corporation Of Orissa And Ors vs Rasananda Das on 26 September, 2003
In Grid Corporation of Orissa and Ors. v. Rasananda Das (AIR 2003 SC 4599) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is not proper to fix two types of scales of pay and the State Government is also bound to protect the service conditions of the absorbed employees and the State Government is not precluded from improving them or granting better pay scales.
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs R, Veeraswamy And Ors on 26 March, 1999
The learned Counsel for the Corporation relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in T.N. Electricity Board v. R. Veerasamy and Ors. ((1999) 3 SCC 414) wherein it was held that when cut off date was prescribed for payment of pension due to financial constraints, it was upheld by the Supreme Court. But, in that case, cut off date was fixed on the basis of Central Government Notification. Here, there is no such notification and no directions were issued by the State Government under Section 34 of the Act to fix a separate cut off date by the Corporation. Not even regulations were framed by the Corporation. Corporation can frame regulation fixing cut off date regarding payment of pension with regard to future revision of pension or pensionary benefits.