Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.57 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Subrata Sen And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 September, 2001
We may observe that this has been considered in the case of Subrata Sen and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra). On the other hand, Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that it is not a case in which it can be said that any date has been arbitrarily chosen.
State Of Maharashtra vs Manubhai Pragaji Vashi & Ors on 16 August, 1995
16. Mr. Ajeet Kumar Sharma, Advocate cited before us the decision rendered in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi (8) and invited our attention to the following observations made in the end of para 17 of this judgment:-
Dhan Raj & Others vs State Of J & K And Others on 23 March, 1998
In case of Dhan Raj v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (7), it was observed by the Supreme Court that "even otherwise, we do not find any justifiable criteria for the State Government to draw the line between those who retired earlier and those retired after 9th June, 1981. Both such set of employees were equally placed in the same Undertaking/Corporation temporary in character and all having served in he organisations for more than 20 years. Even otherwise, while considering the question of grant of pensionary benefits the State has to act to reach the constitutional goal of setting up a socialist State as stated and the assurance as given in the Directive Principles of State Policy. A pension is a apart and parcel of that goal, which secures to a person serving with the State, after retirement, his livelihood. To deny such a right to such a person, without any sound reasoning or any justifiable differentia would be against the spirit of the Constitution.
V. Kasturi vs Managing Director, State Bank Of India, ... on 9 October, 1998
In case of V. Kasturi v. M.D., State Bank of India, Bombay (supra), it was observed in para 21 that if the persons retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if he survives till the time by subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the new formula of computation of pension subsequently brought into force, he would be entitled to get the benefit of the amended pension provision from the date of such order as he would be a member of the very same class of pensioners when the additional benefit is being conferred on all of them. In such a situation the additional benefit available to the same class of pensioners who had survived by the time the scheme granting additional benefit to these pensioners came into force.
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs R, Veeraswamy And Ors on 26 March, 1999
In the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. R. Verasamy (10), the Supreme Court considered its earlier decision in the case of Hari Ram Gupta v. State of U.P. (11) evenafter considering the law laid down in earlier decisions including D.S. Nakara's case as also the case of Krishna Kumar referred to in para 10 while quoting from Hari Ram Gupta's case observed in para 15 that the appellant-Board had given well-founded reasons for introducing the pension scheme from 1.7.1986 including financial constraints. The Supreme Court expressed the view that the retired employees who had retired from service before 1.7.1986 and those who were in employment on the said date, cannot be treated alike as they do not belong to one class. The workmen, who had retired after receiving all the benefits available under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, cease to be employees of the appellant-Board w.e.f. the date of their retirement. They form a separate class. The Supreme Court answered the issue set out that the Board had not acted illegally or contrary to law in introducing the pension scheme prospectively from 1.7.1986 and that the employees retired before 1.7.1986 cannot compel the board to extend the benefit of the newly-introduced pension scheme with retrospective effect.
Hari Ram Gupta (D) Thr. L.R. Kasturi Devi vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 22 July, 1998
In the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. R. Verasamy (10), the Supreme Court considered its earlier decision in the case of Hari Ram Gupta v. State of U.P. (11) evenafter considering the law laid down in earlier decisions including D.S. Nakara's case as also the case of Krishna Kumar referred to in para 10 while quoting from Hari Ram Gupta's case observed in para 15 that the appellant-Board had given well-founded reasons for introducing the pension scheme from 1.7.1986 including financial constraints. The Supreme Court expressed the view that the retired employees who had retired from service before 1.7.1986 and those who were in employment on the said date, cannot be treated alike as they do not belong to one class. The workmen, who had retired after receiving all the benefits available under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, cease to be employees of the appellant-Board w.e.f. the date of their retirement. They form a separate class. The Supreme Court answered the issue set out that the Board had not acted illegally or contrary to law in introducing the pension scheme prospectively from 1.7.1986 and that the employees retired before 1.7.1986 cannot compel the board to extend the benefit of the newly-introduced pension scheme with retrospective effect.
Roshan Lal Tandon vs Union Of India on 14 August, 1967
19. Mr.R.N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General has also relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Roshan lal Tandon v. Union of India and Anr. (12) and State of W.B. v. Monotosh Roy and Anr. (13).
State Of West Bengal vs Monotosh Roy And Anr on 9 December, 1998
19. Mr.R.N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General has also relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Roshan lal Tandon v. Union of India and Anr. (12) and State of W.B. v. Monotosh Roy and Anr. (13).