Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)Krishna Kumar Modi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 24 July, 1975
25. It would be necessary to refer to some of the relevant facts in Krishna Kumar v. Union of India (2 supra) in order to appreciate the decision in that case. The case of the pensioners in that case was that till 1st April, 1957 or even some time thereafter, the pensionary benefits and the alternative contributory provident fund benefits paid to the pensioners were considered to be more or less equally beneficial. During the period from 1957 to 1987 the pensionary benefits of Railway employees were enhanced on several occasions by altering the formula for computing the pension, by including the dearness allowance in the pay, by removal of ceiling of pension, and by introducing or liberalising the Family Pension Scheme etc. But, so far as the Provident Fund beneficiaries are concerned, there was no such enhancement. It was asserted before the Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioners who were Provident Fund subscribers that, due to the successive liberalisations of pensions, the pension beneficiaries derived manifold benefits while the Provident Fund beneficiaries remained stagnant. It was contended that had the petitioners known that pensionary benefits might subsequently be so increased, they would no doubt have opted for pension instead of Provident Fund. The Central Government issued notifications on twelve occasions during the period 1960 to 1987 giving option to the employees specifying the cut-off date. The last of the notifications was dated 8th May 1987. One of the clauses of the notification provided that all Provident Fund beneficiaries who were in service on January 1, 1986 and who were still in service on the date of issue of the orders of the notification will be deemed to have come over to the pension scheme.
Chaudhary Kesava Rao And Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 August, 1990
In Chaudhary Kesava Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (3 supra) it was held that the rules in parts I and II of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 were not discriminatory and the classification made thereunder between the pensioners who retired during the period 1-4-1978 and 28-10-1979 and those who retired after 28-10-1979 was based on an intelligible differentia having a nexus to the objects to be achieved by the rules. Prior to October 29, 1979, the age of superannuation of the Government employees was 55 years and it was raised to 58 years with effect from October 29, 1979. On that ground, the distinction was upheld, noticing at the same time as follows:
D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982
That contention had been repelled, holding that the pension retirees and the Provident Fund retirees constituted two separate classes and the principle laid down in Nakara's case was not applicable to the facts of that case.
Motor General Traders & Anr. Etc. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Etc. Etc on 26 October, 1983
In Motor General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1984 SC 121 the Supreme Court pointed out that "mere lapse of time does not lend constitutionality to a provision which is otherwise bad" and that "time does not run in favour of legislation". The said observations of the Supreme Court apply with equal force here where we are concerned with a continuing cause of action. At the same time, we are of the view that the inordinate delay in questioning the validity-either of an enactment or an executive action shall be taken into account for the purpose of restricting or pruning the relief which the writ petitioners could otherwise get, especially the monetary relief. Therefore we are not inclined to accept the contention advanced by the learned Government Pleader that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1