Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)
Smt. Suman Wd/O Mahadeorao Wagh vs Smt. Leelabai Wd/O Mahadeorao Wagh And ... on 30 August, 2018 cites

Nitu vs Sheela Rani And Ors on 28 September, 2016

Though it was strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the provisions of the Act of 1956 have been made inapplicable in the matter of grant of pension, the said judgment indicates that it has been held therein that the rights of the parties would be governed by the relevant Scheme and only the person entitled as per that Scheme would get the pension. It is not the ratio of that decision that the provisions of Act of ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2018 22:58:09 ::: 8-J-SA-92-18.--odt 8/10 1956 have been made inapplicable in the matter of grant of family pension. Be that as it may, the ratio of this decision does not take the case of the appellant any further in view of the fact that the provisions of Rule 116(6)
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 22 - A R Dave - Full Document

Ramabai Gulabrao Jamnik vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 20 June, 2017

The aforesaid judgment has been followed by the Division Bench in Ramabai Gulabrao Jamnik (supra) as well as by learned Single Judge in Kunda Rushi Meshram vs. Suhila Rushiji Meshram decided on 19th December 2017, 2017 Law Suit (Bom) 2697. The other decisions relied do not support the case of the appellant. Hence substantial question of law No.(i) is answered by holding that the appellant is not entitled to receive family pension along with other service benefits.
Bombay High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 5 - R B Deo - Full Document

Zilla Parishad Nagpur, Thr. Its Chief ... vs Shrirang S/O Wadguji Wanjari on 5 February, 2016

5. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 supported the impugned judgment. According to her the provisions of Rule 116(6)(a) of the said Rules have been interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court and the law as laid down therein was binding and would have to be followed. It was submitted that the decision sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant did not exclude the application of the Acts of 1955 and 1956. Both the Courts rightly held that as the marriage of defendant No.1 was not legal and valid, it having been performed during subsistence of earlier marriage the defendant No.1 was not entitled to the service benefits. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Kunda Rushi Meshram vs. Sushila Rushiji Meshram 2017 Law Suit (Bom) 2697 and Zilla Parishad Nagpur Through its Chief Executive Officer vs. Shrirang s/o Wadguj Wanjari and ors. Second Appeal No.2/2014 decided at the Nagpur Bench on ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2018 22:58:09 ::: 8-J-SA-92-18.--odt 6/10 30/04/2014 in support of her submissions.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1