Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (1.92 seconds)
Lic Of India vs Krishna Murari Lal Asthana And Anr Etc. on 31 March, 2016 cites

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

“The case of the respondents, however, was that in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, the fixation of a cut-off date as a result of which equals were treated as unequals, was wholly arbitrary and had been rightly interfered with by the High Court. One of the questions posed in the aforesaid decision was whether a class of pensioners could be divided for the purpose of entitlement and payment of pension into those who retired by a certain date and those who retired thereafter. The question was answered by the Constitution Bench holding that such division being both arbitrary and unprincipled the classification did not stand the test of Article 14.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 2485 - D A Desai - Full Document

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Kartar Singh on 6 February, 1964

26. We have been appraised at the Bar that the respondents had harboured hope when the resolution was passed. Their hope, as the learned counsel for the respondents would submit, was not unfounded, inasmuch as the revisions in pension were earlier made by 21 issue of certain circulars issued by the Chairman in exercise of power conferred under Rule 55 of the 1995 Rules. Whether the hope was reasonable or not need not be commented upon, but the fact remains that certain respondents are septuagenarians and they have to fight another round of litigation in the High Court. We feel the pain while remanding the matter, but we have no option as the pleadings are not adequate as it should have been while assailing a constitutional validity of a provision. It is well settled in law that he who assails the constitutional validity of a statutory provision or a rule, has to specially assert the grounds for such challenge. [See State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kartar Singh11, State of Andhra Pradesh and another v. K. Jayaraman and others12, Union of India v. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd.13, State of Haryana v. State of Punjab & another 14]. The purpose of saying all this is as the learned counsel for the respondents would agonizingly contend that the amount of pension the respondents are getting is a paltry sum and it is difficult to sustain in the present day. That apart, the Corporation should have been gracious enough to recognize the services rendered by them and the Union of India should have come with an affirmative response when the resolution was passed by the Corporation. We have already 11 AIR 1964 SC 1135 12 (1974) 2 SCC 738 13 (2000) 2 SCC 223 14 (2004) 12 SCC 673 22 adjudicated the said facet, but as we are remanding the matter to the High Court on a different count. In such a situation, we are of the convinced opinion that the respondents should get certain amount as an interim measure. We had already directed by the order dated 7 th May, 2015 that the Corporation shall pay 20% amount to the individual employees. Mr. Kaul, learned Additional Solicitor General would submit that the Corporation has already deposited the entire amount without the pay revision before the High Courts of Rajasthan and Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh are concerned regard being had to the order of this Court. As far as the High Court of Delhi is concerned, employees have been paid 20%, as directed by this Court. The said fact is disputed by learned counsel for the respondents after obtaining instructions. The said aspect shall not detain us, for what we are going to direct in praesenti.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 101 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. vs K. Jayaraman And Ors. on 1 October, 1974

26. We have been appraised at the Bar that the respondents had harboured hope when the resolution was passed. Their hope, as the learned counsel for the respondents would submit, was not unfounded, inasmuch as the revisions in pension were earlier made by 21 issue of certain circulars issued by the Chairman in exercise of power conferred under Rule 55 of the 1995 Rules. Whether the hope was reasonable or not need not be commented upon, but the fact remains that certain respondents are septuagenarians and they have to fight another round of litigation in the High Court. We feel the pain while remanding the matter, but we have no option as the pleadings are not adequate as it should have been while assailing a constitutional validity of a provision. It is well settled in law that he who assails the constitutional validity of a statutory provision or a rule, has to specially assert the grounds for such challenge. [See State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kartar Singh11, State of Andhra Pradesh and another v. K. Jayaraman and others12, Union of India v. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd.13, State of Haryana v. State of Punjab & another 14]. The purpose of saying all this is as the learned counsel for the respondents would agonizingly contend that the amount of pension the respondents are getting is a paltry sum and it is difficult to sustain in the present day. That apart, the Corporation should have been gracious enough to recognize the services rendered by them and the Union of India should have come with an affirmative response when the resolution was passed by the Corporation. We have already 11 AIR 1964 SC 1135 12 (1974) 2 SCC 738 13 (2000) 2 SCC 223 14 (2004) 12 SCC 673 22 adjudicated the said facet, but as we are remanding the matter to the High Court on a different count. In such a situation, we are of the convinced opinion that the respondents should get certain amount as an interim measure. We had already directed by the order dated 7 th May, 2015 that the Corporation shall pay 20% amount to the individual employees. Mr. Kaul, learned Additional Solicitor General would submit that the Corporation has already deposited the entire amount without the pay revision before the High Courts of Rajasthan and Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh are concerned regard being had to the order of this Court. As far as the High Court of Delhi is concerned, employees have been paid 20%, as directed by this Court. The said fact is disputed by learned counsel for the respondents after obtaining instructions. The said aspect shall not detain us, for what we are going to direct in praesenti.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Union Of India vs E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd on 1 February, 2000

26. We have been appraised at the Bar that the respondents had harboured hope when the resolution was passed. Their hope, as the learned counsel for the respondents would submit, was not unfounded, inasmuch as the revisions in pension were earlier made by 21 issue of certain circulars issued by the Chairman in exercise of power conferred under Rule 55 of the 1995 Rules. Whether the hope was reasonable or not need not be commented upon, but the fact remains that certain respondents are septuagenarians and they have to fight another round of litigation in the High Court. We feel the pain while remanding the matter, but we have no option as the pleadings are not adequate as it should have been while assailing a constitutional validity of a provision. It is well settled in law that he who assails the constitutional validity of a statutory provision or a rule, has to specially assert the grounds for such challenge. [See State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kartar Singh11, State of Andhra Pradesh and another v. K. Jayaraman and others12, Union of India v. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd.13, State of Haryana v. State of Punjab & another 14]. The purpose of saying all this is as the learned counsel for the respondents would agonizingly contend that the amount of pension the respondents are getting is a paltry sum and it is difficult to sustain in the present day. That apart, the Corporation should have been gracious enough to recognize the services rendered by them and the Union of India should have come with an affirmative response when the resolution was passed by the Corporation. We have already 11 AIR 1964 SC 1135 12 (1974) 2 SCC 738 13 (2000) 2 SCC 223 14 (2004) 12 SCC 673 22 adjudicated the said facet, but as we are remanding the matter to the High Court on a different count. In such a situation, we are of the convinced opinion that the respondents should get certain amount as an interim measure. We had already directed by the order dated 7 th May, 2015 that the Corporation shall pay 20% amount to the individual employees. Mr. Kaul, learned Additional Solicitor General would submit that the Corporation has already deposited the entire amount without the pay revision before the High Courts of Rajasthan and Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh are concerned regard being had to the order of this Court. As far as the High Court of Delhi is concerned, employees have been paid 20%, as directed by this Court. The said fact is disputed by learned counsel for the respondents after obtaining instructions. The said aspect shall not detain us, for what we are going to direct in praesenti.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 40 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

State Of Haryana vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 15 January, 2002

26. We have been appraised at the Bar that the respondents had harboured hope when the resolution was passed. Their hope, as the learned counsel for the respondents would submit, was not unfounded, inasmuch as the revisions in pension were earlier made by 21 issue of certain circulars issued by the Chairman in exercise of power conferred under Rule 55 of the 1995 Rules. Whether the hope was reasonable or not need not be commented upon, but the fact remains that certain respondents are septuagenarians and they have to fight another round of litigation in the High Court. We feel the pain while remanding the matter, but we have no option as the pleadings are not adequate as it should have been while assailing a constitutional validity of a provision. It is well settled in law that he who assails the constitutional validity of a statutory provision or a rule, has to specially assert the grounds for such challenge. [See State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kartar Singh11, State of Andhra Pradesh and another v. K. Jayaraman and others12, Union of India v. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd.13, State of Haryana v. State of Punjab & another 14]. The purpose of saying all this is as the learned counsel for the respondents would agonizingly contend that the amount of pension the respondents are getting is a paltry sum and it is difficult to sustain in the present day. That apart, the Corporation should have been gracious enough to recognize the services rendered by them and the Union of India should have come with an affirmative response when the resolution was passed by the Corporation. We have already 11 AIR 1964 SC 1135 12 (1974) 2 SCC 738 13 (2000) 2 SCC 223 14 (2004) 12 SCC 673 22 adjudicated the said facet, but as we are remanding the matter to the High Court on a different count. In such a situation, we are of the convinced opinion that the respondents should get certain amount as an interim measure. We had already directed by the order dated 7 th May, 2015 that the Corporation shall pay 20% amount to the individual employees. Mr. Kaul, learned Additional Solicitor General would submit that the Corporation has already deposited the entire amount without the pay revision before the High Courts of Rajasthan and Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh are concerned regard being had to the order of this Court. As far as the High Court of Delhi is concerned, employees have been paid 20%, as directed by this Court. The said fact is disputed by learned counsel for the respondents after obtaining instructions. The said aspect shall not detain us, for what we are going to direct in praesenti.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 139 - R Pal - Full Document
1   2 Next