Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 65 (0.60 seconds)
Arun Kumar And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 8 April, 2026 cites

Purshottam Lal & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 21 February, 1973

46. Accordingly, the contention advanced by learned Senior counsel that the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission were merely accepted to the limited extent of adopting the Central Government pattern and thus, the release of the benefits flowing therefrom is the sole prerogative of the Government of Punjab subject to its discretion and priority, is liable to be rejected. As such, in the light of the law laid down in Purshottam Lal (supra) and SecretaryMahatama Gandhi Mission (supra), the adoption of the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission cannot be treated as a mere MOHD YAKUB formality or symbolic exercise. Upon acceptance, the State incurs a binding 2026.04.19 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 107 - Full Document

Lala Gian Chand And Ors. vs Punjab State And Ors. on 14 May, 1957

7. Moreover, he relies upon Paras 21 to 25 of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in CWP-15554-2007 and connected cases, titled as Gian Chand and others vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 23.12.2025 and submits that the employees and pensioners cannot be deprived of their fundamental entitlements on the ground of financial constraints. The Division Bench has not only rejected the ground of financial constraints but also adversely commented on the fiscal discipline and lack of financial prudence of the Government of Punjab. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as follows:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 61 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next