Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)
A.P.S.E.B. And Ors. vs P. Ramachandra Rao And Anr. on 10 October, 2001 cites

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

9. The apex court in D.S. NAKARA v UNION OF INDIA, clearly held that the expression 'pensioner' is generally understood in context to one in service. Those who render service and retire on superannuation or in receipt of pension comprehend in the expression 'pensioner' and they for such retiral or terminal benefits form a homogenous class. They cannot further be sub-divided with a view to give some more benefits to one and deny the same to the other who is equally placed. Such denial of benefit amongst the same class of persons would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is not in dispute that the respondents were eligible for grant of pension on the date of their retirement. It is also not a case that pension scheme had been introduced only with effect from 1.7.1990. The question which arises for consideration is only the computation of the amount of the pension payable. As indicated hereinbefore they were entitled to add stagnation increments without any deduction from personal pay. However, stagnation increments had been sanctioned to the respondents but the same had been adjusted. The stagnation increments had been released to those persons who had retired after 1.7.1990 without any deduction. Entitlement of the respondents to draw three stagnation increments is not in dispute. By reason of the aforementioned action on the part of the appellants herein, a class within a class had been created which in our considered opinion would attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution. In other words, persons retired prior to or after 1.7.1990 would be entitled to stagnation increments.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 2485 - D A Desai - Full Document

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

10. Mr Ravindranath has placed strong reliance upon the decision in T.N.S. BOARD v R. VEERASAMY, In that case pension scheme was prospective in nature. By reason of such scheme whether the scheme applies fell for consideration before the apex court. It was held that the pension scheme would not be applicable to those who retired prior to the date the scheme was notified.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 114 - K Venkataswami - Full Document
1