Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.53 seconds)Province Of Bombay vs Kusaldas S. Advani And Others on 15 September, 1950
The question for our consideration now is whether the orders
imposing a cut in the pension should be set aside for the
reason that the officers were not given reasonable
opportunity to show cause. The law on the point is not in
doubt. Where a body or authority is judicial or where it
has to determine a matter involving rights judicially
because of express or implied provision, the principle of
natural justice audi ailteram partem applies. See Province
of Bombay v. Kusaldas S. Advani & others(1) and Board of
High School & Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad v.
Ghanshyam Das Gupta and others (2).
Board Of High School & Intermediate ... vs Ghanshyam Das Gupta And Others on 6 February, 1962
The question for our consideration now is whether the orders
imposing a cut in the pension should be set aside for the
reason that the officers were not given reasonable
opportunity to show cause. The law on the point is not in
doubt. Where a body or authority is judicial or where it
has to determine a matter involving rights judicially
because of express or implied provision, the principle of
natural justice audi ailteram partem applies. See Province
of Bombay v. Kusaldas S. Advani & others(1) and Board of
High School & Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad v.
Ghanshyam Das Gupta and others (2).
State Of Orissa vs Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors on 7 February, 1967
See : State of Orissa
v. Dr. Binapani Dei & Ors.(3) and In re H. K. [An
Infant(4)]. In the former case it was observed it page 628
as follows
"An order by the State to the prejudice of a
person in derogation of his vested rights may
be made only in accordance with the basic
rules of justice and fair play. The deciding
authority. it is true, is not in the position
of a Judge called upon to decide an action
between contesting parties, and strict
compliance with the forms of judicial
procedure may not be insisted upon. He is
however under a duty to give the person
against whom 'in enquiry is held an
opportunity to set up his version or defence
and an opportunity to correct or to controvert
any evidence in the possession of the
authority
(1) [1950] S.C.R. 621 (725)
(2) [1962] Sup. (3) S.C.R. 3.
Ramachandra Narasimha Kulkarni vs State Of Mysore on 1 April, 1964
Reference was made on behalf of the State to M. Narasimha v.
The State of Mysore(2) and particularly the following
observations at page 889. "Next the appellant contends that
as his pension has been reduced to two-thirds, he was
entitled to notice in view of the provisions of Art. 311(2)
of the Constitution, before the Government decided to
inflict that punishment on him and that this was not done in
the notice dated December 30, 1954. It is enough to say
that this contention is also baseless. Article 311 (2)
does not deal with the question of pension at all; it deals
with three situations, namely (i) dismissal, (ii) removal,
and (iii) reduction in rank. The appellant says that the
reduction in pension is equivalent to reduction in rank.
All that we need say is that reduction in rank applies to a
case of a public servant who is expected to serve after the
reduction. It has 'nothing to do with reduction of pension,
which is specifically provided for in Art. 302 of the
Regulations. That article says that if the service has not
been thoroughly satisfactory the authority sanctioning the
pension should make such reduction in the amount as it
thinks proper. There is a Note under this article, which
says that ',he full pension admissible under the Regulations
is not to be given as a matter of course but rather to be
treated as a matter of distinction. It was under this
article that the Government acted when it reduced the
pension to two-thirds. Reduction in person being a matter of
discretion with the Government, it carrier therefore be said
that it committed any breach of the Result
(1) [1863] 14 C,13,N.S,. 180.
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Deokinandan Prasad vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 4 May, 1971
The present three appeals are filed by the State Government
challenging the view taken by the full bench.
Much of the argument which would have been otherwise
addressed to us has been cut short by a decision of this
Court in Deokinandan Prasad v. The State of Bihar and
Others(1). It was a petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution by which the petitioner maintained that denial
of pension was an infringement of his fundamental rights
under Article 31(1) and Article 19(1) (f) of the
Constitution. This Court held that the right of a Govern-
ment servant to receive pension is property under Article
31(1) and by a mere executive order the State did not have
the power to withhold the same. It was also held that the
claim to pension was property under Article 19(1)(f) and was
not saved by sub-Article 5 of Article 19. In coming to this
decision a number of cases of the Punjab High Court were
referred to and the view taken by that court in Shri Erry's
case, which is now in appeal before us' was affirmed. Mr.
Mahajan who appeared before us on behalf of the State
conceded that in view of the decision in Deokinandan's case
it was no longer open to him to contend that pension was a
bounty.
Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976
1