Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.26 seconds)State Of Punjab & Ors vs Amar Nath Goyal & Ors on 11 August, 2005
increased quantum of death-cum-retirement gratuity,
this Court has held that the financial constraint
pleaded by the Government, was a valid ground for
fixation of cut-off date and such fixation was not
arbitrary, irrational or violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. While differentiating the facts with D.S.
Nakara (1983) 1 SCC 305 , this Court held in para 29
of the judgment, which reads as under : (Amar Nath
Goyal case [State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal, (2005
) 6 SCC 754.
Pankaj Kumar vs State Of H.P. And Anr on 11 March, 2020
impleading the appointees as party respondents. In the
writ petition, there was no rejoinder filed by the writ
petitioners disputing the averments of the State as
stated in the reply-affidavit. Having regard to the nature
of such appointments, appointments made as per
policies cannot be termed as illegal. Having regard to
material placed before this Court and having regard to
reasons recorded in the impugned order [Pankaj
Kumar v. State of H.P., 2014 SCC OnLine HP 5944] by
the High Court, we are of the view that no case is made
out to interfere with the impugned judgment [Pankaj
Kumar v. State of H.P., 2014 SCC OnLine HP 5944] of
the High Court."
D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982
In D.S. Nakara [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India,
(1983) 1 SCC 305, this Court had treated the pension
retirees only, as a homogeneous class and all the
pensioners governed by the 1972 Rules, were treated
as a class, because payment of pension was a
continuing obligation on the part of the State, till
lifelong to the pensioners, unlike the beneficiaries of
the Contributory Provident Fund. In the said case, it
was never held that the pension retirees and the emplo
ryees in service, constitute a homogeneous class. In R.L
.
Chander Mohan Negi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 17 April, 2020
13. Further, while deciding the appeal against the aforesaid
judgment dated 9.12.2014, Supreme Court in Chander Mohan
Negi v. State of H.P., (2020) 5 SCC 732 observed as under:
Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs N. Subbarayudu & Ors on 26 March, 2008
Govt. of A.P. v. N. Subbarayudu, (2008) 14 SCC 702 :
State Of Bihar And Ors vs Ramjee Prasad And Ors on 11 April, 1990
totally capricious or whimsical), vide State of
Bihar v Ramjee Prasad [(1990) 3 SCC 368, Union of
India v. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal (1994) 4 SCC 212, Ram
rao v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees
Welfare Assn. (2004) 2 SCC 76, University Grants
Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary (1996) 10 SCC
536 etc. It follows, therefore, that even if no reason has
been given in the counter-affidavit of the Government
or the executive authority as to why a particular cut-off
date has been chosen, the court must still not declare
that date to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14
unless the said cut-off date leads to some blatantly
capricious or outrageous result.
Union Of India vs Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal on 4 May, 1994
totally capricious or whimsical), vide State of
Bihar v Ramjee Prasad [(1990) 3 SCC 368, Union of
India v. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal (1994) 4 SCC 212, Ram
rao v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees
Welfare Assn. (2004) 2 SCC 76, University Grants
Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary (1996) 10 SCC
536 etc. It follows, therefore, that even if no reason has
been given in the counter-affidavit of the Government
or the executive authority as to why a particular cut-off
date has been chosen, the court must still not declare
that date to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14
unless the said cut-off date leads to some blatantly
capricious or outrageous result.
Md. Ali Imam vs The State Of Bihar Thr. Its Chief ... on 4 February, 2020
Mohd. Ali Imam v. State of Bihar, (2020) 5 SCC 685
:
Hari Mohan Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 28 September, 2018
9. If we see the rationale of the impugned judgment
[Hari Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar, 2017 SCC OnLine
Pat 3091] as set out in para 29 onwards, we may
notice that the same is predicated on the absence of
arbitrariness in the applicability of the cut-off date of
the amendment in the Triple Benefit Scheme Statute as
well as the rationality behind it based on the date of
the Cabinet decision granting Triple Benefit Scheme to
such deficit grant colleges. We cannot find any fault
with the reasoning in the impugned order