Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.27 seconds)Union Of India vs P.N.Menon on 17 March, 1994
In Union of India v. P.N. Menon and Ors, while implementing the
recommendations of the Third Pay Commission with regard to dearness pay
linked to average index level 272, which was to be counted as emoluments
for pension and gratuity under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972,
the Central Government had fixed a certain cut-off date and directed that
only officers retiring on or after the specified date were entitled to the
benefits of the dearness pay being counted for the purpose of retirement
benefits. This was challenged as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. This Court turned down the challenge and observed:
Action Committee South Eastern Railway ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 5 September, 1990
In Action Committee South Eastern Railway Pensioners v. Union of
India, it was held that, on merger of a part of dearness allowance as
dearness pay on average price index level at 272 with reference to different
pay ranges, fixing a cut-off date in such a manner was not arbitrary and the
principle enunciated in D.S. Nakara (supra) was not applicable.
Krishena Kumar And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 July, 1990
In this
connection, the ratios in Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, Indian Ex-
Services League v. Union of India, State Government Pensioners'
Association v. State of A.P., and All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers'
Association v. Union of India are apt. In all these cases, the prescription of
a cut-off date for implementation of such benefits was held not to be
arbitrary, irrational or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Indian Ex-Services League And Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc on 29 January, 1991
In this
connection, the ratios in Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, Indian Ex-
Services League v. Union of India, State Government Pensioners'
Association v. State of A.P., and All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers'
Association v. Union of India are apt. In all these cases, the prescription of
a cut-off date for implementation of such benefits was held not to be
arbitrary, irrational or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
State Government Pensioners' ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 July, 1986
In this
connection, the ratios in Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, Indian Ex-
Services League v. Union of India, State Government Pensioners'
Association v. State of A.P., and All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers'
Association v. Union of India are apt. In all these cases, the prescription of
a cut-off date for implementation of such benefits was held not to be
arbitrary, irrational or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs R, Veeraswamy And Ors on 26 March, 1999
More recently, in Veerasamy (supra), this Court observed that,
financial constraints could be a valid ground for introducing a cut-off date
while implementing a pension scheme on a revised basis. In that case, the
pension scheme applied differently to persons who had retired from service
before 1.7.1986, and those who were in employment on the said date. It was
held that they could not be treated alike as they did not belong to one class
and they formed separate classes.
K. L. Rathee vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 July, 1997
In State of Punjab and Ors. v. Boota Singh and Anr., ("Boota
Singh") after considering several judgments of this Court in D.S. Nakara
(supra) to K.L. Rathee v. Union of India, it was held that D.S. Nakara
(supra) should not be interpreted to mean that the emoluments of persons
who retired after a notified date holding the same status, must be treated to
be the same.
State Of Punjab & Anr vs J.L.Gupta & Ors on 16 February, 2000
In State of Punjab and Anr. v. J. L. Gupta and Ors., where one of
us was on the Bench (Sabharwal, J.), the views expressed in Boota Singh
(supra) were reiterated, and it was held that for the grant of additional
benefit, which had financial implications, the prescription of a specific
future date for conferment of additional benefit, could not be considered
arbitrary.
Ramrao & Ors vs All India Backward Class Bank Employees ... on 5 January, 2004
In Ramrao and Ors. v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees
Welfare Association and Ors., a Division Bench of this Court said, even
for the purpose of effecting promotion, the fixing of a cut-off date was
neither arbitrary, unreasonable nor did it offend Article 14 of the
Constitution. Moreover, the Court held that possible hardship to be endured
by a person as a result did not make cut-off dates violative of Article 14.