Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)Deokinandan Prasad vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 4 May, 1971
In Deokinandan Prasad vs State of Bihar (1971) 2 SCC 330, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that pension is not a bounty but a
valuable right earned by the employee for the services rendered.
State Of Kerala And Ors vs M. Padmanabhan Nair on 17 December, 1984
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 13 :: TA 8892/2020
Similarly, in State of Kerala vs M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 SCC
429, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that any delay in settlement
of retiral benefits must be viewed seriously and the employee or his
family should not be deprived of legitimate dues.
Union Of India & Anr vs Tarsem Singh on 13 August, 2008
15. The plea of delay raised by the respondents cannot be accepted in the
facts of the present case. The claim relates to service benefits which
directly affect pension and family pension. It is well settled that
pension related claims constitute a recurring cause of action and
therefore such claims cannot be rejected merely on technical grounds
of limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs
Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 has held that claims relating to
continuing wrongs such as pay fixation and pension may be
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 14 :: TA 8892/2020
entertained even after lapse of time, although the arrears may be
restricted to a reasonable period.
1