Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court held that the Sikkim Government Pension Rules do not prohibit the revisionist from entering into a compromise deed with the respondent, therefore, the former is bound by the deed.
“If appellants wanted the seniority of respondent to be counted from a date of joining, then nothing prevented them from mentioning similar condition as was fixed regarding the pay and allowances with respect to seniority also.”
Rajasthan High Court held that retiral benefits are earned by employees for their services and should not be deprived due to non-job-related legal matters.
“Severance of employer — employee relationship can never be said to be an easy choice, for it not only results in the employee losing his livelihood, but also affects those who depend on him for their survival. And if the employer is the Indian Army, the loss is even greater, since it has the effect of suddenly displacing a soldier from the regimented lifestyle of the military”
Supreme Court: In an appeal against the judgment passed by Bombay High Court, whereby the Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the
Madras High Court, while noting that the respondent is 94 years old, directed MoHA to comply with the order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
“Pension is not a bounty from the state authority to the retired employee, it is compensation for the past service rendered by the employee. It cannot be withheld without assigning any reason”.
Madhya Pradesh High Court noted that the petitioner did not dispute her liability to refund the commuted portion in instalments, as per her undertaking.
“Public authorities hold the public funds in trust. The public money cannot be allowed to be wasted by unjustified delays caused by the public authorities in discharge of their duties.”
“The respondents being “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, its officers are public functionaries. Under our Constitution, sovereignty vests in the people. Every limb of constitutional machinery, therefore, is obliged to be people oriented. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behavior”
The Petitioner is 86 years of age today and though she is a legally wedded wife, she received no pension after the demise of her husband for 25 years only because the second wife Rukhminibai was paid the pension after the demise of the freedom fighter husband.
“When the position of law is almost identical everywhere in the other States and when the benefit of Annual Increment is given to such employees, then denial of such benefits to the petitioners would amount to violation of their right of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.”
Because of the retrospective operation of the new pension scheme, no employer or employee would have forethought that appointments made after 01-04-2003 would not be eligible for the old pension scheme.
“The Tribunal apparently failed to appreciate that the calculations made by the respondents overlooked proviso (b) to Rule 6 as well as Rule 8 of the Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 and commutation value expressed as number of years of purchase, prejudicial to the petitioner cannot be applied.”
The primary duty of the office of a Judge is to render justice to the litigants by deciding the cases that are assigned to him and a Judge appointed under Article 224 of the Constitution of India is as much under oath to perform this duty, as a Judge appointed under Article 217.
The State acts as a model employer that can’t discriminate among its employees and give a benefit that is conferred under the applicable rules/instructions to some, and deny the same to others.
Supreme Court observed that allowing the instant appeal would tantamount regularizing the appellants' services as work charged from the initial appointment.
Supreme Court said that even if development of Khadi and Cottage Industry is a Directive Principle of State Policy, it does not follow as a corollary that if the State establishes a Board or any organisation to carry out the obligations under such DPSP, it cannot make separate arrangements as regards the service conditions of the employees of such a Board or organisation.
Supreme Court held that the respondent could not have been given the pensionary benefits as Scientist -H in NTRO, as before her probation period was completed, she was relieved.
Supreme Court upheld the NCLT order that the provident fund, pension fund and gratuity fund are not part of the liquidation estate, for distribution under Section 53 of the IBC and the same has to be paid to the employees under the stated heads.