Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)
Union Of India &Amp; Others vs Padam Dev Sharma on 14 September, 2018 cites

Confederation Of Ex-Servicemen ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 August, 2006

8. In fact it is apparent that the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court noticed the plea taken by department therein that there is a clear 14 (RA No. 060/00040/2018 & etc.) distinction between retired and the serving employees whose perks cannot be equated on the ground of any legitimate principle or any touch stone of law. He has placed reliance on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in cases titled as 'CONFEDERATION OF EX-SERVICEMEN ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS' reported as 2006(4) SCT 128, 'STATE OF PUNJAB VS. RAM LUBHAYA BAGGA' reported as 1998(1) SCT 716 and 'UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. S.K.SAIGAL AND OTHERS' reported as 2007(1) SCT 286. After noticing the history of cases on the issue, the Court has held "We are thus of the opinion that given the judicial finality accorded in an identical petition which is not even remotely deviant from the present one, there is no reason for us not to take a similar view. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not in any way enhance their case. It is pertinent to mention here that we are dealing with the cases of persons who have retired and are in dire need of medical attention in their old age. It is also an accepted fact by the petitioners themselves that CGHS facilities are not available in most of the areas where the respondents reside including an important town like Ambala. If that be so, then the observations extracted above would be attracted to the present cases in all ferocity." In fact, the Hon‟ble High Court also relied upon decision of Hon‟ble H.P. High Court in the case of 'UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VERSUS SHANKAR LAL SHARMA' reported as 2016(1) SCT 413, in which it was held that "Note 2 appended to Rule 1 is read down to extend the benefit of CS (MA) Rules, 1944 to retired Government officials residing in non-CGHS areas to save it from unconstitutionality and 15 (RA No. 060/00040/2018 & etc.) to make it workable". Despite, this the respondents did not woke up and kept on placing reliance on said decision to reject the claim of the pensioners / retirees. The finding of this Tribunal is in consonance with the view taken by the Hon‟ble High Court that any instructions, clarification of 2004 or the redundant rules, framed before enforcement of Constitution, are illegal, inoperative and deserve to be "ignored". In other words, these rules have not been quashed by the Tribunal. These are only to be ignored by the respondents. The Bench has only quashed the impugned orders. The declaration of rule as inoperative does not mean, that the same stands deleted from the statute book. If that makes the respondents happy, it can be kept therein as an ornament only in so far as the entitlement of retired employees to medical reimbursement is concerned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 159 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Mohan Lal Gupta & Anr on 17 January, 2018

7. A lot of hue and cry was raised by learned counsel for the Review Petitioners that in the absence of any challenge to legality of Rules of 1944, the same could not be declared as illegal or arbitrary by this Tribunal, more so when the same were held to be legal by Full Bench of this Tribunal. It is not in dispute that this Tribunal in para 26 of its decision has clearly held that import and applicability of CS (MA) Rules, 1944, and clarification dated 20.8.2004 were re-examined and were held to be arbitrary and illegal by the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, leading case being CWP No. 26270 of 205 titled UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS VS. MOHAN LAL GUPTA & OTHERS, 20018 (1) SCT, 686. We have perused that decision.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 93 - Full Document

Shiva Kant Jha vs Union Of India on 13 April, 2018

6. A perusal of the pleas taken by them in the Review Application and the pleadings of written statements in Original Applications would show that they are taking same grounds all over again to invite this Tribunal to hearing these cases once again on merit, which is not permissible. These are the same stand which were duly taken by them while opposing the decision in the case of DHARMINDER SHARMA (supra) and were rejected by coordinate Bench, in view of the latest law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of SHIVA KANT JHA (supra) and those cases were allowed in favour of the applicants therein.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 223 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs S.K. Saigal & Ors on 15 November, 2006

8. In fact it is apparent that the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court noticed the plea taken by department therein that there is a clear 14 (RA No. 060/00040/2018 & etc.) distinction between retired and the serving employees whose perks cannot be equated on the ground of any legitimate principle or any touch stone of law. He has placed reliance on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in cases titled as 'CONFEDERATION OF EX-SERVICEMEN ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS' reported as 2006(4) SCT 128, 'STATE OF PUNJAB VS. RAM LUBHAYA BAGGA' reported as 1998(1) SCT 716 and 'UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. S.K.SAIGAL AND OTHERS' reported as 2007(1) SCT 286. After noticing the history of cases on the issue, the Court has held "We are thus of the opinion that given the judicial finality accorded in an identical petition which is not even remotely deviant from the present one, there is no reason for us not to take a similar view. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not in any way enhance their case. It is pertinent to mention here that we are dealing with the cases of persons who have retired and are in dire need of medical attention in their old age. It is also an accepted fact by the petitioners themselves that CGHS facilities are not available in most of the areas where the respondents reside including an important town like Ambala. If that be so, then the observations extracted above would be attracted to the present cases in all ferocity." In fact, the Hon‟ble High Court also relied upon decision of Hon‟ble H.P. High Court in the case of 'UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VERSUS SHANKAR LAL SHARMA' reported as 2016(1) SCT 413, in which it was held that "Note 2 appended to Rule 1 is read down to extend the benefit of CS (MA) Rules, 1944 to retired Government officials residing in non-CGHS areas to save it from unconstitutionality and 15 (RA No. 060/00040/2018 & etc.) to make it workable". Despite, this the respondents did not woke up and kept on placing reliance on said decision to reject the claim of the pensioners / retirees. The finding of this Tribunal is in consonance with the view taken by the Hon‟ble High Court that any instructions, clarification of 2004 or the redundant rules, framed before enforcement of Constitution, are illegal, inoperative and deserve to be "ignored". In other words, these rules have not been quashed by the Tribunal. These are only to be ignored by the respondents. The Bench has only quashed the impugned orders. The declaration of rule as inoperative does not mean, that the same stands deleted from the statute book. If that makes the respondents happy, it can be kept therein as an ornament only in so far as the entitlement of retired employees to medical reimbursement is concerned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 63 - H K Sema - Full Document

Shri Shiva Kant Jha vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2002

Moreover, the rules were also considered by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the latest decision in SHIVA KANT JHA VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS, W.P. (C) No. 694 of 2015 decided on 13.4.2018 and the Lordships have upheld entitlement of retired / pensioners to the medical reimbursement. Thus, in view of the higher courts of law having taken a view on the issue including the apex dispensation as well, this Tribunal had no other option but to concur with the same.
Delhi High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 42 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Parsion Devi & Ors vs Sumitri Devi & Ors on 14 October, 1997

11. It is now well settled principle of law that the scope for review is rather limited, and it is not permissible for the forum hearing the review application to act as an Appellate Authority, in respect of the original order by a fresh and re-hearing of the matter, to facilitate a change of opinion on merits. The reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in cases of PARSION DEVI AND OTHERS VS. SUMITRI DEVI AND OTHERS (1997) 8 SCC 715, AJIT KUMAR RATH VS. STATE OF ORISSA (1999) 9 SCC 596, UNION OF INDIA VS. TARIT 17 (RA No. 060/00040/2018 & etc.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 1043 - S R Babu - Full Document

Ajit Kumar Rath vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 2 November, 1999

11. It is now well settled principle of law that the scope for review is rather limited, and it is not permissible for the forum hearing the review application to act as an Appellate Authority, in respect of the original order by a fresh and re-hearing of the matter, to facilitate a change of opinion on merits. The reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in cases of PARSION DEVI AND OTHERS VS. SUMITRI DEVI AND OTHERS (1997) 8 SCC 715, AJIT KUMAR RATH VS. STATE OF ORISSA (1999) 9 SCC 596, UNION OF INDIA VS. TARIT 17 (RA No. 060/00040/2018 & etc.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 676 - S S Ahmad - Full Document
1