Judgments - Pension
Arun Kumar Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Law laid down - ➢ Merely registration of the FIR and offence by the Lokayukt Establishment would not debar the petitioner because the judicial proceedings have not deemed to be instituted on the date of attaining the age of superannuation by the petitioner. ➢ The Governor is having the right to withhold or withdraw the pension or part thereof in the contingencies specified in Rule 9(1), in case an employee is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence committed by him during the Full Judgment
HARVEER SINGH Vs. DELHI POWER SUPPLY CO. LTD. THRU CHAIRMAN
T.P. Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Law laid down - "If an employee has worked for less than 90 days in a department, whether his CR could be considered by the DPC for promotion - Held- No. "Whether the claim of the petitioner could not be ignored by taking into consideration the uncommunicated annual confidential report- Held- Yes. Full Judgment
Smt. Shanti Bavaria Vs. State of M.P. & Others
Law Laid down - It is not necessary to obtain personal sanction of His Excellency, Governor of Madhya Pradesh for taking decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings, and if the council of Ministers have taken such decision, it will serve the purpose and meet the requirement of Rule 9 of the Pension Rules. Reliance is placed upon State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Dr. Yashwant Trimbak, AIR 1996 SC 765 & Samsher Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 Full Judgment
VIHAR DURVE Vs THE STATES OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LAW AND JUDICIARY DEPT.
SMTI KAMALA BALA BANIKYA VS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
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