Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)
Jaswant Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 19 April, 2023 cites

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

6. This Court takes a serious view of the attitude adopted by the State. Firstly, the payment of pension and pensionary benefits was deferred for non existing reasons and secondly, the same is sought to be justified at the time of filing of the reply. The question would be that whether mere filing of a complaint by a Contractor before the Human Rights Commission with regard to some canteen dispute and that also pertaining to only Rs.1.5 lacs that a right which has been vested upon an employee under the 3 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 11-06-2023 23:47:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057438 2023:PHHC:057438 CWP-7424-2020 -4- Statutory Rules can be taken away in this manner. This Court expresses its displeasure towards the attitude adopted by the State agencies whereby even after making a mistake, they seek to justify their mistake in the reply. Under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, Right to Property cannot be divested without the authority of law and it is a settled law that Right to pension and pensionary benefits are Right to Property, and therefore, it is a Constitutional Right. For a number of times, Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with this issue and rather way-back in the year 1971, a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in "Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar", 1971(2) SCC 330, held that pension is not a bounty of the State and is rather a Fundamental Right under Article 31(1) of the Constitution of India. However, later on by virtue of 44th Amendment of the Constitution of India, Right to Property became a Constitutional Right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India instead of a Fundamental Right The relevant portion portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 429 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document

State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr on 14 August, 2013

7. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in another authoritative judgment passed in "State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another", 2013(12) SCC 210 again discussed the entire law pertaining to the valuable rights pertaining to the grant of pensionary benefits. Para Nos.8 and 16 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 722 - A K Sikri - Full Document

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

"8. It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not the bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and un- blemished service. Conceptually it is so lucidly described in D.S. Nakara and Ors. Vs. Union of India; (1983) 1 SCC 305 by Justice D.A. Desai, who spoke for the Bench, in his inimitable style, in the following words:
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 2485 - D A Desai - Full Document

Devaki Nandan Prasad vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 22 April, 1983

20. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty a gratituous payment 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 has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors. [1971] Su. S.C.R. 634 wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon any one's discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied maters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 154 - D A Desai - Full Document

A.J. Randhawa Supdg. Engineer (Retd.) vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 16 May, 1997

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a case where the petitioner retired on 31.05.2019 as Principal/Group Instructor after seeking extension of service and at the age of 60 years. He further submitted that at the time of the retirement or even thereafter, there were neither any disciplinary proceedings nor any criminal proceedings nor any other type of proceedings pending against the petitioner. He also submitted that in fact as per the stand taken by the State in its affidavit, some complainant had filed a complaint before the Human Rights 1 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 11-06-2023 23:47:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057438 2023:PHHC:057438 CWP-7424-2020 -2- Commission on the ground that there was some money dispute with regard to some canteen, and thereafter, even the Human Rights Commission also dismissed the complaint on the ground that no human rights have been violated. He further submitted that the pension and the pensionary benefits are not only the Statutory rights but also Constitutional Rights guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and the same can be deprived only in accordance with law and under some provisions of law. He further submitted that there had been no violation of any Statutory provision or Rule, and therefore, the denial of pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner was without the authority of law. He further submitted that the mere pendency of one complaint before the Human Rights Commission is no ground for denial of pension and pensionary benefits and has submitted that the benefits have been paid to the petitioner with a delay and regarding which the dates have been mentioned in the reply which has been filed by the State in Para No.3. He also submitted that GP Fund has been paid to the petitioner on 19.08.2019, GIS has been paid on 27.03.2020, Leave Encashment has been paid on 13.02.2020, Pension, DCRG and Commutation of pension have been paid on 11.08.2020, for which there is no ground at all for making delayed payment, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of interest on the delayed payment in view of the full Bench judgment of this Court passed in "A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others", 1997(3) SCT 468.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1110 - T H Chalapathi - Full Document
1