Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.30 seconds)D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982
10. Pension and retiral benefits of an employee or his family is a right and cannot be said to be bounty is now well settled. The Apex Court, in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India 1983 (1) SCC 305 held as follows:
A.K. Bindal & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 April, 2003
In A.K. Bindal and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2003 SC 2189 it was held that 'right to life' enshrined under Article 21 means something, more than bare survival or animal existence.
State Of Maharashtra vs Chandrabhan Tale on 7 July, 1983
The Court referred to it earlier decision in State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan AIR 1983 SC 803 where payment of very small subsistence allowance to an employee during suspension was held wholly insufficient to sustain his living and, was held to be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd.,And ... vs The Union Of India And Others(And ... on 8 January, 1958
12. For the purpose of payment of due wages necessary for (sic) sustenance or minimum wages, the financial capacity of the employer has not been held to be a valid consideration by Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Express Newspaper (Private) Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 578, Hindustan Times Ltd. New Delhi v. Their Workmen AIR 1963 SC 1332.
The Hindustan Times Ltd., New Delhi vs Their Workmen on 14 December, 1962
12. For the purpose of payment of due wages necessary for (sic) sustenance or minimum wages, the financial capacity of the employer has not been held to be a valid consideration by Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Express Newspaper (Private) Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 578, Hindustan Times Ltd. New Delhi v. Their Workmen AIR 1963 SC 1332.
Sangam Lal S/O Babu Lal And Smt. Shyam ... vs State Of U.P. on 26 October, 2005
5. The petitioner, in her rejoinder affidavit, has stated that she did not file any writ petition earlier. On the contrary, the writ petition No. 6329 of 2007 was filed by one Gya Prasad. Against the judgment dated 7.2.2007 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge, dismissing his writ petition, he filed a Special Appeal No. 282 of 2007, which was allowed by the Division Bench on 12.3.2007 setting aside the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge and remitting the matter the Hon'ble Single Judge to decide the writ petition on merits afresh. A copy of the Government Order dated 23.12.1997 has also been placed on record as Annexure RA-2, which provides that minimum family pension amount should be 1275/- per month. It is also said that another writ petition No. 25673 of 2006 Sangam Lal Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors. involving a similar issue has been decided by this Court following Moti Lal Agarwal (Supra).
Secretary, Ministry Of Chemicals & ... vs M/S. Cipla Ltd. & Ors on 1 August, 2003
Similarly financial crunch or shortage of funds would not be a valid defence for the State where it is bound to discharge its duties which are statutory or constitutional is also the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Government of India v. Cipla Ltd. and Ors. 2003 (7) SCC page 1 and The State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. Ahmedabad and Anr. 1974 (4) SCC 656 para 54 to 63 and AIR 1987 SC 157, para 92, 93 and 99.
The State Of Gujarat And Another vs Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad, Etc on 26 March, 1974
Similarly financial crunch or shortage of funds would not be a valid defence for the State where it is bound to discharge its duties which are statutory or constitutional is also the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Government of India v. Cipla Ltd. and Ors. 2003 (7) SCC page 1 and The State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. Ahmedabad and Anr. 1974 (4) SCC 656 para 54 to 63 and AIR 1987 SC 157, para 92, 93 and 99.
The Workmen Of Bhurkunda Colliery Of M/S ... vs The Management Of Bhurkunda Colliery Of ... on 27 January, 2006
In Workmen of Bhurkunda Colliery of Central Coalfields Ltd. v. Bhurkunda Colliery of Central Coalfields Ltd. 2006 (3) SCC 297, the Apex Court observed that the State should be a model employer, should not exploit employees nor take advantage of helplessness of either unemployed persons or the persons concerned as the case may be. The dictum is fully applicable to the present case also where a destitute widow has been forced to approach the Court of law for enforcement of her legal right of receiving family pension on revised scale, which has not been heeded by the respondents despite the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court as long back as in 1996.