State Of Punjab vs K.R. Erry & Anr on 21 September, 1972
15. The Apex Court in Judgment dated 21.09.1972
reported in 1973 AIR (SC) 834 in State of Punjab v
K.R.Erry and another observed as under :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.25 seconds)Ramachandra Narasimha Kulkarni vs State Of Mysore on 1 April, 1964
In the case before us the officers are being
deprived of part of their property by applying a cut to
the pension. Therefore, it was quite essential in all
fairness and elementary justice that they should have
been given reasonable opportunity to show cause
against the proposed action. Reference was made on
behalf of the State to M. Narasimha v. The State of
Mysore([1960] 1 S.C.R.).
Uco Bank And Others vs Anju Mathur on 7 March, 2013
For such
proposition learned counsel has also relied on the
decision of UCO Bank (supra), the relevant being at
paragraph 26 as well as in the case of Deepak Sapra vs
Punjab National Bank decided on 18.09.2013 of the
Delhi High Court (L.P.A. No. 693 of 2013), the relevant
being at paragraphs 6 to 10.
A.N. Puniwala vs Bank Of India And Ors. on 25 April, 2007
Learned counsel has also relied for
the same proposition on a decision of the Delhi High
Court in the case of A.N. Puniwala vs Bank of India and
Ors: dated 25.04.2007 reported in (2007) 3 GLR 2143,
WP_23711_2017
20 SN,J
the relevant being at paragraphs 15. 16 and 17.
Learned counsel submits that even with regard to
leave Patna High Court CWJC No.15264 of 2015 dt 22-
02-2016 encashment, the Courts have held that even
in the case of compulsory retirement, the same is
payable as per the existing Service Regulations and
cannot be denied to a compulsory retiree.
Deepak Sapra vs Punjab National Bank on 18 September, 2013
For such
proposition learned counsel has also relied on the
decision of UCO Bank (supra), the relevant being at
paragraph 26 as well as in the case of Deepak Sapra vs
Punjab National Bank decided on 18.09.2013 of the
Delhi High Court (L.P.A. No. 693 of 2013), the relevant
being at paragraphs 6 to 10.
Arun Kumar Sood vs Chairman & Managing Director on 5 September, 2019
18. The Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment dated
05.09.2019 passed in L.P.A.No.128 of 2011 between
Arun Kumar Sood v Chairman & Managing Director, UCO
Bank and others, observed as under:
Bishwanath Prasad Singh vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 15 December, 2000
It is settled law that compulsory retirement can either
be simplicitor or by way of punishment, see (2001) 2
SCC 305, titled Bishwanth Prasad Singh v State of
Bihar and others. Regulation 33 will have no
applicability in cases of compulsory retirement
simplicitor as no amount of pension can be withheld in
cases of compulsory retirement simplicitor.
Union Of India vs Ram Lakhan Sharma on 2 July, 2018
In a judgment reported in (2018) - 7 SCC 670,
titled Union of India and others Vs Ram Lakhan Sharm
& judgment reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519, titled
Dharampal Satyapal Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner
of Central Excise, Gauhati and others, it was observed
as under:
M/S Dharampal Satyapal Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 1 December, 2011
In a judgment reported in (2018) - 7 SCC 670,
titled Union of India and others Vs Ram Lakhan Sharm
& judgment reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519, titled
Dharampal Satyapal Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner
of Central Excise, Gauhati and others, it was observed
as under:
H. Gangahanume Gowda vs Karnataka Agro Industries Corpn.Ltd on 5 February, 2003
21. This Court opines that the principle laid down in
the above case applies for payment of delayed pension
as well, in view of the fact that retiral benefits are
earned by an employee for long and meritorious
services rendered by him/her. They are not paid to the
employee gratuitously or merely as a matter of boon. It
is paid to him/her for his/her dedicated and devoted
WP_23711_2017
26 SN,J
work. Pension, therefore, can be understood as a form
of investment through which an employer invests a
sum certain to guarantee periodic payments of that
sum to a retired worker or the worker's dependants in
the event of their death, hence, there is no escape from
concluding that interest on delayed payment of pension
is payable to the petitioner herein by the respondent
bank.