Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.49 seconds)
Ex. Asi Shadi Ram vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 22 February, 2008 cites

Anna Deoram Londhe Deceased Through His ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 June, 1998

29. Going further, I find that the case of Anna Deoram Londhe v. State of Maharashtra, reported as, 1998 (5) SLR 480, which was also relied upon by the petitioner before the Tribunal has been dealt with in a cursory fashion by the learned Tribunal. This is a decision of a division bench of the Bombay High Court wherein the court was considering the applicability of Rule 101 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, to an application for Compassionate Pension moved by an officer who was removed from service for misconduct after more than 30 years of service. This removal was prompted by his conviction for an offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. In that case also, the petitioner challenged the rejection of his application on the ground that the concerned authority had not applied its mind to his application in the manner required under the relevant rules. It was contended that the impugned order in that case demonstrated a clear lack of reasoning for the rejection. A reading of this authority shows that the only reason assigned for the rejection of the applicant's representation for Compassionate Pension was that the applicant was convicted of an offence under Section 325 of The Indian Penal Code, which was considered to be a serious offence. In that case also, the relevant rules required that the, "government may, if the case is considered deserving of special treatment, sanction the grant..." of a Compassionate Pension to the applicant. This is similar to the relevant provision under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules which provides that the Competent Authority may, " if the case is deserving of special consideration, sanction a compassionate allowance...", to the applicant. The two are in pari materia. It is apparent that in applying the two, similar considerations have to be kept in mind by the Government, or the Competent Authority, as the case may be. In that case, the High Court of Bombay had concluded that the respondent ought to have considered the representation of the petitioner to assess whether the case is deserving of a special consideration for grant of pension independently of the fact of his having been convicted of an offence under Section 325 IPC. Since that was not done, the impugned order refusing Compassionate Pension was set aside.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 12 - A B Palkar - Full Document

Ex. Cost. Chand Rup vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 5 March, 2004

17. The learned Tribunal was impressed by the fact that all the courts have rejected the petitioner's challenge to his dismissal. It appears to have felt that in this way, the order of dismissal of the petitioner has been confirmed, and that this somehow disqualifies the petitioner for the grant of Compassionate Allowance. This is apparent from its acceptance of the respondent's submissions noted in paragraph 10 of its judgment to the effect that, "the dismissal of the applicant has attained finality", as well as its observations in para 13 of its judgment where it has sought to distinguish the decision of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Ex. CT. Daya Nand v. Union of India and Ors. 2000 (1) ATJ 136 on the ground that in that case, there was no court order confirming the petitioner's dismissal. Similarly, a reading of paragraph 15 shows that the learned Tribunal has unwittingly evolved a new ground for dismissing an application for grant of Compassionate Allowance, which is affirmation of the applicant's incident of misconduct by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court. Besides the fact that it was not within the province of the Tribunal to substitute its own conclusions on the merits of the petitioner's application for that of the Competent Authority; I feel that such a consideration is not even germane to the issue for the reason that no such factor is provided under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules read with the aforesaid Guidelines.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 8 - B N Chaturvedi - Full Document

Mohinder Singh Gill And Anr. vs Chief Election Commissioner And Ors. on 25 April, 1977

The above dictum applies with full force to the case at hand, and I do not agree with the conclusion of the learned Tribunal in paragraph 14 of its judgment that, although reference to the said case by the petitioner, "is well taken", "however, once the order is before the court and there are pleadings argued on both sides taking additional grounds as well, it may not be fair to ignore them in adjudicating upon the matter." No cogent legal reasoning is offered, nor has any precedent been cited by the Tribunal for adopting this approach in the matter. Furthermore, this approach adopted by the learned Tribunal, which clearly entailed taking into consideration the supplemental reasons put forward by the Competent Authority in support of the impugned order, which were not there in its original order, flies in the face of settled law as laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Mohinder Singh Gill's case [supra].
Delhi High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 195 - Y Dayal - Full Document
1   2 Next