Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 85 (4.92 seconds)
M Sujatha vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 5 March, 2021 cites

Centre For Public Interest Litigation vs U.O.I on 23 February, 2018

There is no dispute regarding the law laid down by the Apex Court in the said two judgments. Merely because it is branding as policy decision, it cannot be interfered with by this Court is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in various judgements 75 [1994] 1 AC 486 (HL) MSM,J WP No.19671_2020 and batch 70 (referred supra). When executive action is contrary to the constitutional principles or against any statute or it violates the principles of natural justice, certainly, the Court can interfere with such policy decisions. Merely because such power is vested on the State to take policy decisions, the State is not at liberty to take any decision in the name of policy decision, which takes away the available rights of the citizenry of the State or contrary constitutional principles or law enacted by the State legislature or Parliament. Such unbridled power is not vested with the executive of the State. If interference of the Courts is restricted totally, it is difficult to control the acts of the State executive though executive orders are contrary to the constitutional principles or law enacted by the State legislature or Parliament. Therefore, no such unbridled power is vested on the State to take any decision to cause substantial damage to the fundamental rights of the citizens of the State.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 147 - A K Goel - Full Document

Kerala State Road Transport Corpn vs K.O. Varghese And Ors on 17 April, 2003

Pension is not a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and it creates a vested right subject to the statute, if any, holding the field. Pension is not an ex gratia payment, but is a payment for the past service rendered. It is a social welfare measure rendering socio- economic justice to those who in the heyday of their life ceaselessly toiled for employers on an assurance that in their ripe old age they would not be left in lurch. (See: "Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. K.O.Varghese" (referred above) It was also held in the said judgment that in a strict sense, pension is not a matter of contract and is not founded on any legal liability; it is a mere bounty or gratuity 'springing from the appreciation and consciousness of the sovereign' and it may be given or withheld at the discretion by the sovereign.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 82 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next