Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (2.34 seconds)
Sri Swapan Kumar Mallick vs Union Of India & Others on 1 April, 2016 cites

D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982

"18. For Centuries the Courts swung in favour of the view that pension is either a bounty or a gratuitous payment for loyal service rendered depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court. This view held that filed and a suit to recover pension was held not maintainable. With the modern notions of social justice and social security, concept of pension underwent a radical change and it is now well-settled that pension is a right and payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the employer, nor can it be denied at the sweet will or fancy of the employer. Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1971) 2 SCC 330, State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, (1976) 2 SCC 1 and D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305. If pension which is the retiral benefit as a measure of social security can be recovered through civil suit, we see no justification in treating gratuity on a different footing. Pension and gratuity in the matter of retiral benefits and for recovering the same must be put on par."
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 2485 - D A Desai - Full Document

Sudhir Chandra Sarkar vs Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. And Others on 27 March, 1984

In Sudhir Chandra Sarkar v. Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. and Ors., (supra), a permanent uncovenanted employee of the company had served for 29 years whereafter he tendered his resignation which the employer accepted unconditionally. the Company's Retiring Gratuity Rules did not provide for payment of gratuity to employees who resigned from service. This Court while reversing the view taken by the High Court held that termination of service by resignation was tantamount to retirement by resignation entitling the employee to retiral benefits. The following passage is apposite in this regard.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 96 - D A Desai - Full Document

Reserve Bank Of India & Anr vs Cecil Dennis Solomon & Anr on 4 December, 2003

was elaborately discussed by this Court in UCO Bank and Qrs. Vs. Sanwar Mal, (2004) 4 SCC 412 where this Court was examining the previsions of UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 applicable to a bank employee who had resigned from service after giving an advance notice to the appointing authority. So also in Reserve Bank of India and Anr. v. CECIl Dennis Solomon and Anr., (2004) 9 SCC 461 this Court was considering the provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulations, 1990 while it made a distinction between what is resignation on the one hand and voluntary retirement on the other. At the same time a long line of decisions have recognised that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace but is a payment for past services rendered by the employee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 113 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Deokinandan Prasad vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 4 May, 1971

"18. For Centuries the Courts swung in favour of the view that pension is either a bounty or a gratuitous payment for loyal service rendered depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court. This view held that filed and a suit to recover pension was held not maintainable. With the modern notions of social justice and social security, concept of pension underwent a radical change and it is now well-settled that pension is a right and payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the employer, nor can it be denied at the sweet will or fancy of the employer. Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1971) 2 SCC 330, State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, (1976) 2 SCC 1 and D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305. If pension which is the retiral benefit as a measure of social security can be recovered through civil suit, we see no justification in treating gratuity on a different footing. Pension and gratuity in the matter of retiral benefits and for recovering the same must be put on par."
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 429 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Anr vs Iqbal Singh on 12 February, 1976

"18. For Centuries the Courts swung in favour of the view that pension is either a bounty or a gratuitous payment for loyal service rendered depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court. This view held that filed and a suit to recover pension was held not maintainable. With the modern notions of social justice and social security, concept of pension underwent a radical change and it is now well-settled that pension is a right and payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the employer, nor can it be denied at the sweet will or fancy of the employer. Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1971) 2 SCC 330, State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, (1976) 2 SCC 1 and D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305. If pension which is the retiral benefit as a measure of social security can be recovered through civil suit, we see no justification in treating gratuity on a different footing. Pension and gratuity in the matter of retiral benefits and for recovering the same must be put on par."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 127 - J Singh - Full Document
1