Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.24 seconds)D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982
29. The Court had earlier noticed the issue in Nakara that there the
"liberalised pension formula introduced a slab system, raised the ceiling
and provided for a better average of emoluments for computation of pension
and the liberalised scheme was made applicable to employees governed by
W.P.(C) 1335/2012 Page 26
the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, retiring on or after the
specified date." It was then held that the liberalized formula of calculating
pension rates, which had been extended to pre-1979 retirees in line with
Nakara (supra) and that consequently, the claim for one pension for all, was
untenable.
Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs N. Subbarayudu & Ors on 26 March, 2008
26. The respondents relied on Govt. of A.P. v. N. Subbarayudu 2008 (14)
SCC 702. The Supreme Court held, in that decision, that:
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Amar Nath Goyal & Ors on 11 August, 2005
State of Punjab Vs. Amar Nath Goel20 had confined pension benefits with
reference to a cut-off date. The Court held as follows:
Union Of India And Anr vs Sps Vains (Retd.) And Ors on 9 September, 2008
9. Learned counsel relies upon the decisions reported as D.S.Nakara and
Ors. v. Union of India1; K.J.S. Buttar v. Union of India and Anr2; Union of
India and Anr. v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal3; State of Punjab v. Justice S.S.
Devan,4 and Union of India and Anr. v. S.P.S. Vains (Retd.) and Ors.5
The Union's contentions
1
(1983) 1 SCC 305;
Indian Ex-Services League And Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc on 29 January, 1991
In Indian Ex-Servicemen League (supra), the Supreme Court
described the claim made before it, in the following terms:
Union Of India & Ors vs Lieut (Mrs.) E.Iacats on 6 August, 1997
In Mrs. Iacats (supra) the Supreme Court
firstly explained developments after Nakara:
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
P.K. Kapur à Appellant vs Union Of India And Others à Respondents on 1 February, 2007
In P.K. Kapur (supra) the Supreme Court held that in matters of pay
or pension benefits, classification is permissible and that recommendations
of expert bodies such as Pay Commissions can be persuasive and acted upon
without offending Article 14.
Union Of India And Anr vs Deoki Nandan Aggarwal on 4 September, 1991
9. Learned counsel relies upon the decisions reported as D.S.Nakara and
Ors. v. Union of India1; K.J.S. Buttar v. Union of India and Anr2; Union of
India and Anr. v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal3; State of Punjab v. Justice S.S.
Devan,4 and Union of India and Anr. v. S.P.S. Vains (Retd.) and Ors.5
The Union's contentions
1
(1983) 1 SCC 305;