Judgments - Pension
SOU. MONE RASHMI SHRIRAM Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
Sant Kumar Mishra and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Ku. Dhaneshwari Thakur Versus State of Chhattisgarh
PEPSU ROAD TPT CORPN, PATIALA Vs. AMANDEEP SINGH & ORS.
In view of the above, it is well settled that the notice inviting option need not to be personally served to the employees unless the Regulation or any instruction so provides. From the facts of the present case it is clear that although Regulations were in force from 1992, plaintiff retired on 30th November, 2011 and after retirement received CPF benefits without any protest and Full Judgment
VIJAY SHANKAR MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
More importantly, certain inbuilt safeguards against discharge from service based on four red ink entries have also been prescribed. The first and foremost is an unequivocal declaration that mere award of four red ink entries to an individual does not make his discharge mandatory. This implies that four red ink entries is not some kind of Laxman Full Judgment
BINDESHWARI CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 20.05.2008, passed by High Court of Judicature at Patna, whereby Letters Patent Appeal No. 436 of 2000 was disposed of allowing respondent authorities to withhold 50% of gratuity and 50% of pension, of the appellant. It is also nobody’s case that the appellant caused pecuniary loss to the exchequer. In the light of above, we find force in submission of Full Judgment
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 2 ORS. Vs. DHIRENDRA PAL SINGH
Admittedly, no departmental enquiry was initiated in the present case against the respondent for the misconduct, if any, nor any proceedings drawn as provided in Article 351-A of UP Civil Service Regulations. Learned single Judge of the High Court has observed that the document which is the basis of enquiry and relied upon by the State authorities, copy Full Judgment
T.S.DAS & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
STATE OF H.P & ORS Vs. RAJESH CHANDER SOOD ETC ETC
In our opinion, since the employees of Government companies are not Government servants, they have absolutely no legal right to claim that the Government should pay their salary or that the additional expenditure incurred on account of revision of their pay-scales should be met by the Government. Being employees of the companies, it is the responsibility of the companies to pay them salary and if the company is Full Judgment
NITU Vs. SHEELA RANI AND ORS
It is pertinent to note that in this case the pension is to be given under the provisions of the Scheme and therefore, only the person who is entitled to get the pension as per the Scheme would get it. family pension does not form part of the estate of the deceased and therefore, even an employee has no right to dispose of the same in his Will by giving a direction that Full Judgment
SANTOSH DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
LIC OF INDIA AND ORS Vs. KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA AND ANR ETC.
Ramlal Sharma V/s State of Chhattisgarh Through-Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, & Ors.
VEERENNDRA KUMAR DUBEY Vs. CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF & ORS
The first and foremost is an unequivocal declaration that mere award of four red ink entries to an individual does not make his discharge mandatory. This implies that four red ink entries is not some kind of laxman rekha, which if crossed would by itself render the individual concerned undesirable or unworthy of retention in the force. Award of four red ink entries simply pushes the individual concerned into a grey area where Full Judgment
ASGER IBRAHIM AMIN Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORP. OF INDIA
To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is Full Judgment
UOI & OTHERS Vs. NO. 3989606 P, EX-NK VIJAY KUMAR
A.N. SACHDEVA (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. Vs. MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY,ROHTAK &ANR
Considering the principles enunciated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and that the benefit is not an ex gratia payment but a payment in recognition of past service, in our opinion, discrimination could not have been made between those employees who have been absorbed/allocated are entitled to count their services as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and not those who have been appointed directly. Fact remains that all these employees have served in Punjab University/Kurukshetra University/MD. University without any break. M.D. University, prior to Full Judgment
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. Vs. MAHENDRA NATH SHARMA
20. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty a gratuitous 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 Full Judgment