Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.40 seconds)Union Of India & Anr vs M/S. Parameswaran Match Works Etc on 4 November, 1974
21. ...It is settled law that the choice of a date as a basis for classification cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is forthcoming for the choice unless it is shown to be capricious or whimsical in the circumstances. When it is seen that a line or a point there must be and there is no mathematical or logical way of fixing it precisely, the decision of the Legislature or its delegate must be accepted unless it can be said that it is very wide off the reasonable mark. [See Union of India v. Parmeswaran Watch Works and Sushma Sharma (Dr.) v. State of Rqjasthan .
Dr. (Mrs.) Sushma Sharma Etc. Etc vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 12 March, 1985
21. ...It is settled law that the choice of a date as a basis for classification cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is forthcoming for the choice unless it is shown to be capricious or whimsical in the circumstances. When it is seen that a line or a point there must be and there is no mathematical or logical way of fixing it precisely, the decision of the Legislature or its delegate must be accepted unless it can be said that it is very wide off the reasonable mark. [See Union of India v. Parmeswaran Watch Works and Sushma Sharma (Dr.) v. State of Rqjasthan .
State Of West Bengal vs Monotosh Roy And Anr on 9 December, 1998
In State of W.B. v. Monotosh Roy and Anr. it was held :
All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers ... vs Union Of India And Others on 10 December, 1991
In AII India Reserve Bank Retired Officers' Association v. Union of India (1992) 19 A.T.C. 856 a Bench of this Court distinguished the judgment in Nakara and pointed out that it is for the Government to fix a cutoff date in the case of introducing a new pension scheme. The Court negatived the claim of the persons who had retired prior to the cut-off date and had collected their retiral benefits from the employer.
Union Of India vs P.N.Menon on 17 March, 1994
the ruling in P.N. Menon case (supra), was followed and it was reiterated that in matters of revising the pensionary benefits and even in respect of revision of scales of pay, a cut-off date on some rational or reasonable basis has to be fixed for extending the benefits.
State Of Rajasthan And Anr vs Amrit Lal Gandhi & Ors on 10 January, 1997
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Jogendra Singh on 4 March, 1963
In State of U.P. v. Jogendra Singh a Division Bench of this Court held that liberalised provisions introduced after an employee's retirement with regard to retiral benefits cannot be availed of by such an employee. In that case the employee retired voluntarily on 12.4.1976. Later on. the statutory rules were amended by Notification dated 8.11.1976 granting benelit of additional qualifying service in case of voluntary retirement. The Court held that the employee was not entitled to get the benefit of the liberalised provision which came into existence alter his retirement.
V. Kasturi vs Managing Director, State Bank Of India, ... on 9 October, 1998
15. The present case will be governed squarely by the last two rulings referred to above. We have no doubt whatever that the first respondent is not entitled to the relief prayed for by him in the writ petition...
Vice-Chairmand And Managing Director, ... vs Ch. R. Varaprasad And Others on 15 June, 1999
In Vice Chairman and Managing Director, A.P.S.I.D.C. Ltd. and Anr. v. R. Varaprasad and Ors., in relation to 'cut-off date fixed for the purpose of implementation of Voluntary Retirement Scheme, it was said: