Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.34 seconds)

State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr on 14 August, 2013

In the case of State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another reported in 2013 (3) UPLBEC, 2369, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that terminal benefits such Page 5 of 9 as pension and gratuity are not bounty and they cannot be taken away as per Article 300-A of the Constitution of India without following the due process of law. The Apex Court has further held that merely because a criminal case or departmental proceedings are pending against employee, his terminal benefits cannot be withheld, unless he is found guilty of the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 722 - A K Sikri - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Anr vs Iqbal Singh on 12 February, 1976

In the case of State of Punjab and another Vs. Iqbal Singh reported in 1976 SCC (2) 1, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that since the cut of pension and gratuity adversely affects the retired employee, as such order cannot be passed without giving reasonable opportunity of making his defence. It is an admitted fact that no notice was issued to the applicant before withholding the gratuity and not sanctioning the regular pension.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 127 - J Singh - Full Document

Mohammad Majhar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 9 December, 2020

14. I have also perused the judgment of Mohammad Majhar (supra) and Gambhir Singh (supra). In these cases, gratuity/pension was withheld due to pendency of criminal case against the employee and the said criminal case had nothing to do with the discharge of his public duties in the office. In the said case, while referring the different provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, it has been held that if criminal case pending against the employee had nothing to do with his official duties, his gratuity cannot be withheld.
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 4 - S K Yadav - Full Document
1   2 Next