Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.60 seconds)D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982
In view of the above and for the reasons
stated above, we are of the opinion that the
controversy/issue in the present appeal is
squarely covered by the decision of this
Court in D.S. Nakara [D.S. Nakara v. Union
of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305. The decision of
this Court in D.S. Nakara shall be applicable
with full force to the facts of the case on
hand. The Division Bench of the High Court
has clearly erred in not following the
decision of this Court in D.S. Nakara and
has clearly erred in reversing the judgment
and order of the learned Single Judge. The
impugned judgment and order passed by the
Division Bench is not sustainable and the
same deserves to be quashed and set aside
and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
The judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge is hereby restored and
it is held that all the pensioners, irrespective
of their date of retirement viz. pre-1996
retirees shall be entitled to revision in
pension on a par with those pensioners who
retired post-1996. The arrears be paid to the
respective pensioners within a period of
three months from today."
Ramadhar Sharma vs State Of Bihar on 21 September, 2017
24. Considering the above settled position of law, the action
of the State Government in issuing revised notification dated
23.09.2009 vide resolution no. 50/VI dated 15.01.2016 by
giving benefit of full pension on completion of 20 years of
service only to those employees who have superannuated on or
after 01.04.2007 and those employees who have retired
completing less than 33 years of service till 31.03.2007, their
pension will be fixed after reducing proportionately in terms of
service completed by them is in teeth of this Court's order
passed in CWJC no. 20478 of 2012 (Ramadhar Sharma vs
State of Bihar), the above settled position of law by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that the resolution
no.50/VI dated 15.01.2016 being arbitrary, unintelligible and
voilative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is accordingly
set aside and quashed.
Union Of India vs P.N.Menon on 17 March, 1994
2005 SCC (L&S) 910] ; P.N. Menon [Union of India v.
P.N. Menon, (1994) 4 SCC 68 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 860]
and Amrit Lal Gandhi [State of Rajasthan v. Amrit Lal
Gandhi, (1997) 2 SCC 342 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 512] .
Shankar Sharma @ Shankar Singh @ Ram ... vs The State Of Bihar on 24 November, 2015
In the said writ petition, the employees, who had retired
before the effective date and had been denied the benefit filed
Patna High Court CWJC No.10000 of 2017 dt. 03-05-2023
5/32
CWJC No.20478 of 2012 (Rama Dhar Sharma Vs. The State
of Bihar). The writ petition was allowed by treating the
employees who had retired between 01.01.2006 to 23.09.2009
constitute the homogeneous class and the benefit was directed to
be given to all those employees who had retired at least between
01.012006 and 23.09.2009, the State Government thereafter by
making amendment in the policy, vide resolution no.50/VI dated
15.01.2016 made the policy effective to all the government
employees retrospectively from 01.01.2006, however the
financial benefit of new revised pay scale/structure was made
effective from 01.04.2007, however no amendment was brought
with respect to calculation of pension and gratuity.
Hari Ram Gupta (D) Thr. L.R. Kasturi Devi vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 22 July, 1998
7.9. In view of the above, we are satisfied that none of
the judgments, relied upon by the learned Senior
Advocate for the respondent State, has any bearing to
the controversy in hand. The Division Bench of the
High Court has clearly erred in not appreciating
and/or considering the distinguishable facts in Hari
Ram Gupta [Hari Ram Gupta v. State of U.P., (1998) 6
SCC 328 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1485] ; R. Veerasamy
[T.N. Electricity Board v. R. Veerasamy, (1999) 3 SCC
414 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 717] ; Amar Nath Goyal [State
of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal, (2005) 6 SCC 754 :
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Amar Nath Goyal & Ors on 11 August, 2005
7.9. In view of the above, we are satisfied that none of
the judgments, relied upon by the learned Senior
Advocate for the respondent State, has any bearing to
the controversy in hand. The Division Bench of the
High Court has clearly erred in not appreciating
and/or considering the distinguishable facts in Hari
Ram Gupta [Hari Ram Gupta v. State of U.P., (1998) 6
SCC 328 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1485] ; R. Veerasamy
[T.N. Electricity Board v. R. Veerasamy, (1999) 3 SCC
414 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 717] ; Amar Nath Goyal [State
of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal, (2005) 6 SCC 754 :
Indian Ex-Services League And Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc on 29 January, 1991
In Indian Ex-Services League [Indian
Ex-Services League v. Union of India, (1991) 2 SCC
104 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 536] , the dispute was with
respect to PF retirees and Pension retirees and to that
it was held that PF retirees and Pension retirees
constitute different classes and therefore this Court
distinguished the decision of this Court in D.S. Nakara
[D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 :
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Clerks Of Calcutta Tramways vs Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd on 11 October, 1956
"Workers are therefore concerned with the
purchasing power of the pay-packet they
receive for their toil. If the rise in the pay-
packet does not keep pace with the rise in
prices of essentials the purchasing power of
the pay-packet falls reducing the real wages
leaving the workers and their families worse
off. Therefore, if on account of inflation
prices rise while the pay-packet remains
frozen, real wages will fall sharply. This is
what happens in periods of inflation. In
order to prevent such a fall in real wages
different methods are adopted to provide for
the rise in prices. In the cost-of-living
sliding scale systems the basic wages are
automatically adjusted to price changes
shown by the cost-of-living index. In this
way the purchasing power of workers'
wages is maintained to the extent possible
and necessary. However, leap-frogging must
be avoided. This Court in Clerks & Depot
Cashiers of Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd. v.
Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd. [AIR 1957 SC
78], held that while awarding dearness
allowance cent per cent neutralisation of the
price of cost of living should be avoided to
check inflationary trends.