Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr on 14 August, 2013
It is, thus, contended that
the action of the State in withholding the amount of pension, gratuity
and leave encashment is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Jitendra Kumar Srivastava's case (supra).
Ajay Kumar Das vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 31 July, 2009
9. The Notification dated 31st of July, 1980 is issued by
the Finance Department published under the authority of the Governor
of Bihar and in the official Gazette. Under proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution, no other procedure was required to be followed. Mere
fact that it does not recite that such Notification has been issued in
terms of proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India will not
make it to be a non statutory rule when all pre requisite condition for
issuance of a rule in exercise of such power has been satisfied. It is
specifically mentioned in such notification that such Notification
substitutes the Bihar Pension Rules, Treasury Code, Service Code and
other related orders. The Notification has been issued by the Finance
Department under the orders of the Governor of Bihar and published in
the official Gazette. It satisfies the parameters of the Rules required to
be published under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.
Therefore, the Notification dated 31st July, 1980 is a statutory Rule
framed in terms of proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The
judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Ajaya
Kumar Das's case (supra) has no application to the facts of the present
case.
Dr.Bajrang Deo Narain Sinha vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 July, 2012
Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon two
Division Bench judgments of this Court in the cases of Bajrang Deo
Narain Sinha Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., 1999 (3) PLJR 949, and
The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Shamsher Bahadur Singh, 2003 (2)
PLJR 833, to contend that pension amount cannot be withheld unless
misconduct is proved against the employee.
Vijay Kumar Mishra And Brij Bihar Kuwar ... vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 24 February, 1988
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and find
that the issues raised by the petitioners are covered against the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5380 of 2014 dt.22-10-2016
5/7
petitioners by the judgment of this Court in Vijay Kumar Mishra's case
(supra).
The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Lal Bahadur Singh on 16 September, 2014
Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon two
Division Bench judgments of this Court in the cases of Bajrang Deo
Narain Sinha Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., 1999 (3) PLJR 949, and
The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Shamsher Bahadur Singh, 2003 (2)
PLJR 833, to contend that pension amount cannot be withheld unless
misconduct is proved against the employee.
1