Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 43 (0.34 seconds)

Krishena Kumar And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 July, 1990

24.Considering the various judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents and their arguments, I am inclined to hold that the contention of the counsel for the respondents 2 to 6 have considerable force and acceptable. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 6, the petitioners have not challenged any of the provisions of Pension Scheme. Their only contention is that when pay scale is revised and the employees who were in service, when it came into force, are paid Pension based on the revised pay scale, they must also be paid the same amount. This contention is untenable and unacceptable. The definition of ?employee? and ?pensioner? created two different category of persons. The pensioners therefore cannot claim benefits granted to the employees who were in service at the time of revision of scale of pay. The Apex Court explained the ratio in D.S.Nakara's case in the judgment of Krishna Kumar Vs Union of India [1990 (4) SCC 207].
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 392 - K N Saikia - Full Document

Indian Ex-Services League And Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc on 29 January, 1991

13. It clearly appears from all these cases that Nakara case1 is not a case of universal application irrespective of the facts and circumstances of the case. When the Government decided that pension was to be calculated on the basis of average salary drawn over a period of last ten months, it was held in Nakara1 that this principle has to be applied even to those persons who had retired before the notified date. That, however, does not mean that the emoluments of the persons who were retiring after the notified date and those who have retired before the notified date holding the same status must be treated to be the same. This argument was specifically negatived by the Constitution Bench in the case of All India Services Pensioners? Assn.4 What the petitioner is claiming in this case is more or less the same relief as was denied to him in the above case.?
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 203 - J S Verma - Full Document

Dr. (Mrs.) Sushma Sharma Etc. Etc vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 12 March, 1985

In the case of Sushma Sharma (Dr) v. State of Rajasthan2 (AIR at p. 1379 : SCC p. 66, para 44) this Court cited with approval its earlier observations in Union of India v. Parameswaran Match Works Ltd.3 to the effect that the choice of a date as a basis of classification cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary unless it is capricious or whimsical...........Pensioners under the old rules and pensioners under the new rules are not similarly situated. Each set of retiring employees will be governed by their own rules in force when they retire.?
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 189 - S Mukharji - Full Document

V. Kasturi vs Managing Director, State Bank Of India, ... on 9 October, 1998

In the case of V.Kasthuri Vs State Bank of India (supra) (1998) (8) SCC 30, it was held that if a person was eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if he survives till the time of subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per new formula. Accordingly, he would be entitled to get similar benefit from the date it is given to other members.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 130 - M J Rao - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next