Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)
Kerala Electrical & Allied Engineering ... vs Raveendran Pillai And Ors. on 10 June, 1999 cites

The Govt. Of A.P. & Ors vs Syed Yousuddin Ahmed on 13 August, 1997

8. The counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice the decision of the Supreme Court in Govt. of A. P. and Ors. v. Syed Yousuddin Ahmed 1997 7 SCC 24 which according to him, would apply in the facts of this case. That was a case which arose under the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. There the question was whether Rule 31 thereof would apply to all those who were in service at the time when the amended Rule came into force. The Supreme Court said that Rule 31 would apply to all the employees who were in service on the date when the amended Rule came into force for the purpose of finding out the meaning of the expression 'emoluments' on the basis of which the pension of the employees has to be calculated on superannuation. The question before us is not similar to the one that arose in that case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 20 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Chairman, Railway Board And Ors vs C.R. Rangadhamaiah And Ors. Etc. Etc on 25 July, 1997

9. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Chairman, Railway Board and Ors. v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah and Ors. 1997 6 SCC 623. Para 20 of the said decision pin points that the rule which operates in future so as to govern future rights of those already in service cannot.be assailed on the ground of retrospectivity as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, but a rule which seeks to reverse from an anterior date a benefit. which has been granted or availed of, e.g. promotion or pay scale, can be assailed as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to the extent it operates retrospectively. The above decision further states in para 24 of the report that in many of the decisions the expressions 'vested right1 or 'accrued rights' have been used while striking down the impugned provisions which had been given retrospective operation so as to have an adverse effect in the matter of promotion, seniority, substantive appointment etc. of the employees. The said expressions have been used in the context of a right flowing under the relevant rule which was sought to be altered with effect from an anterior date and thereby taking away the benefits available under the rule in force at that time. It has been held that such an amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away a benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 522 - S C Agrawal - Full Document
1