Judgments - Pension
Shyam Babu Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others
NATIONAL INSURANCE SPECIAL VOLUNTARY RETIRED/RETIRED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ANR. Versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
UNA NAGAR PALIKA VERSUS KALIBEN BALUBHAI MAKWANA & ANR.
COAL INDIA LIMITED Vs. R. K. GUPTA & ORS.
Smt. Krishna Gandhi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Union of India Versus R. Sethumadhavan & Anr.
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