03.09.2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| DISPOSED ON | ORDER | REGARDING | COURT | CASE | NO; | YEAR | PETITIONERS | RESPONDENTS | PETITIONER's ADVOCATE | RESPONDENT's ADVOCATE | RESPONDENT's ADVOCATE | RESPONDENT's ADVOCATE | COURT | COURT | |||
1 | DISPOSED 25 July, 1986 | Supreme Court | Equivalent citations: 1986 AIR 1907, 1986 SCR (3) 383 | State Government Pensioners' | State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 July, 1986 | Bench: Thakkar, M.P. | ||||||||||||
2 | DISPOSED | Supreme Court | CIVIL APPEAL | 5591 | 2006 | K.J.S. Buttar | Union of India and Anr. | Markandey Katju, J. | Gyan Sudha Misra | |||||||||
3 | DISPOSED ON | Home dept officials rapped for denying promotions | CHENNAI | |||||||||||||||
4 | DISPOSED ON 3.12.2007. | IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA | 2006 | K. S. Raina. | Union of India and others. | Ms. Ranjana Parmar | Ms. Shilpa Sood (Union of India) | Mr.Ashwani Sharma(Respondents 2 &3 ) | Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. | |||||||||
5 | DISPOSED ON 9/10/1998 | In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed. | S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A | V. KASTURI | MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF INDIA, BOMBAY & ANR. | S.B. MAJUMDAR | M JAGANNADHA RAO | |||||||||||
6 | DISPOSED ON 17/12/1982 | Petition allowed. | S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A | D.S. NAKARA & OTHERS | UNION OF INDIA | DESAI, D.A.,CHANDRACHUD,Y.V.(C.J.),TULJAPURKAR, V.D. | V.D.,REDDY,O.CHINNAPPA(J),ISLAM BAHARUL (J) | |||||||||||
7 | DISPOSED ON | passed the order that he was fully qualified for the benefit because he fulfilled the criterion enunciated in rule 12(a) of the Pension rules that a teacher should have served minimum of 10 years to claim the pension. | orders pension to 83-year old former teacher | Madras | S Sankaran | |||||||||||||
8 | DISPOSED ON February 24,2009. | dismissed | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA -CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION | REVIEW PETITION(C) | 170 | 2009 | UNION OF INDIA & ANR. | MAJOR GEN.SPS VAINS(RETD.) & ORS. | ALTAMAS KABIR,J. | MARKANDEY KATJU,J. | ||||||||
9 | DISPOSED ON 12th January, 2010 | JAIPUR HIGH COURT | S.B. Civil Writ Petition | 654 | 2007 | Krishna Murari Lal Asthana | Union of India & Ors. | Mr.Abhinav Sharma, Ms.Anita Aggarwal,G.C. | Mr.S.S. Raghav | JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI | ||||||||
10 | DISPOSED ON 3-Jun-10 | dismissed. 3-Jun-10 | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA -CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION | Civil Appeal | 973 | 2007 | Manohar Lal (D) by Lrs. | Ugrasen (D) by Lrs. & Ors. | B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] | 2 | ||||||||
11 | DISPOSED ON 3-Jun-10 | allowed. 3-Jun-10 | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA -CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION | Civil Appeal | 974 | 2007 | Ghaziabad Development Authority | Ugrasen (D) by Lrs. & Ors. | HON'BLE B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] | 2 | ||||||||
12 | DISPOSED ON 4.7.2008 | writ petition is allowed | IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH | CWP | 1128 | 1997 | Madan Lal Gandhi and others | Union of India and others .....Respondents. | Shri K.K.Gupta | Shri Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. | Shri B.R. Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. | MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA | ||||||
13 | DISPOSED ON 20/09/2010 | He submitted that accordingly, main grievance of present petitioner is satisfied by Respondent No.1 LIC. | IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD | SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION | 1168 | 2010 | LIC PENSIONER'S ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS PRESEDENT & 5 - Petitioner(s) | LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & 3 - Respondent(s) | MR GT PARIKH for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 6. | MR AK CLERK for Respondent(s) : 1, | MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI for Respondent(s) : 2, | MS DHARMISHTA RAVAL for Respondent(s) : 3, | MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD | |||||
14 | 28.6.2011 | MADRAS | Writ Appeal | 1209 | 2007 | 1.G.Palani &others | 1.Bank of Barodaand others | : Mr.AL.Somayaji, | : Mr.A.P.S.Kasturi Rangan for | .JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO , JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN | 2 | |||||||
15 | 12/02/2008 | 30. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.25,000/-. | Gratuity Case of LIC | Supreme Court | Appeal (civil) | 1289 | 2007 | PETITIONER: Life Insurance Corporation of India and others | Retired L.I.C. Officers Association and others | BENCH: S.B. SINHA & HARJIT SINGH BEDI JUDGMENT: | 2 | |||||||
16 | DISPOSED ON | CWP | CM 2935 | 2005 | ||||||||||||||
17 | DISPOSED ON -9-Sep-08 | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA -CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION | CIVIL APPEAL@SPECIAL | 5566 | 2008 | UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Petitioner(s) | MAJOR GEN.SPS VAINS(RETD.) & ORS. | 1)ALTAMAS KABIR,J.2)MARKANDEY KATJU,J. | 2 | |||||||||
18 | DISPOSED ON 12th January, 2010 | JAIPUR HIGH COURT | CWP | 6676 | 1998 | Krishna Murari Lal Asthana | Union of India & Ors. | Mr.Abhinav Sharma, Ms.Anita Aggarwal,G.C. | Mr. Anurag Aggarwal, Mr.Manoj Singh Ragav | JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI | ||||||||
19 | DISPOSED | SLP civil | 12357 | 2006 | UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Petitioner(s) | MAJOR GEN.SPS VAINS(RETD.) & ORS. | ||||||||||||
20 | DISPOSED | CWP | CM 14351 | 2004 | ||||||||||||||
21 | DISPOSED | S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A | Civil Misc. Petition | 18044 | 1988 | M. L. JAIN | UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS | |||||||||||
22 | DISPOSED | S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A | Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) | 20830 | 2010 | M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD & ORS. | ||||||||||||
23 | DISPOSED ON 10/12/2007 | 3. In view of the above, no case is made out for interference. Hence, dismissed. | IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD | SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION | 21345 | 2007 | MANOJBHAI N. SHAH & 66 - Petitioner(s) | UNION OF INDIA & 4 - Respondent(s) | MR DHARME SH V SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 67. | None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 5. | JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL | |||||||
24 | DISPOSED ON 10/12/2007 | 3. In view of the above, no case is made out for interference. Hence, dismissed. | IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD |
| 21411 | 2007 | MANOJBHAI N. SHAH & 66 - Petitioner(s) | UNION OF INDIA & 4 - Respondent(s) | MR DHARMESH V SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 67. | None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 5. | .JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL | |||||||
25 |
| special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn. | S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A | SLP (Civil)CC converted to Special Leave Petition | 12189 converted to 25471 | 2010 | STATE OF HARYANA & ANR | DAYANAND & ORS. | 1) JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI 2)JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULY | 2 | ||||||||
26 | DISPOSED 14/09/2010 | benefit should be extended to all retired employees | ERNAKULAM | WP(C). | 27929 | 2003 | T.R. VIJAYAN and others | . THE STATE BANK OF INDIA and others | :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) | SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM, ADDL.CGSC | Justice S.SIRI JAGAN | |||||||
27 | :31/08/2010 | Even a retrospective amendment cannot take away the rights of an employee for retirement benefits | ERNAKULAM | OP. | 37198 | 2001 | M.C.RATNAKARAN | 1. CANARA BANK | Justice S.SIRI JAGAN | |||||||||
28 | ||||||||||||||||||
29 | “the object of compensation is the fall in the value of the rupee & the neutralization in cost of living is completely defeated by payment of DR after reducing slab at all stages & that Pensioner drawing a monthly basic pension of Rs3000 is treated on par with a person drawing a basic pay of Rs6000 in the matter of payment of DR/DA,which is unjust & unreasonable.’’ | Kerala HC | Chandrasekara Menon T vs UOI & Ors, ruled , “the object of compensation is the fall in the value of the rupee & the neutralization in cost of living is completely defeated by payment of DR after reducing slab at all stages & that Pensioner drawing a monthly basic pension of Rs3000 is treated on par with a person drawing a basic pay of Rs6000 in the matter of payment of DR/DA,which is unjust & unreasonable.’’ | UOI & Ors | ||||||||||||||
30 | such a statement is unfounded, & is nothing but meekness with no constitutional or legal foundation | Kerala HC | (WP9) | 12768 | 2006 | Manmohan C & Others | Kerala StateWareHousing Corporation | |||||||||||
31 | verdict ,which appeared in Indian Express dt 4 August,2010 ,wherein the Tribunal unequivocally pronounced 'distinction in pension on basis of Retirement date is unreasonable ,violates Article 14 of Constitution.' It ordered 'end disparity in pension & other benefits to Defence Personnel who retired prior to January 2006 & those who retired after 1/2006. | Army Tribunal Bench | ||||||||||||||||
32 | “We are of the view that Court judgments when delivered on merits should not only be implemented invariably but their benefits should also be extended to similarly placed persons without requiring them to resort to litigation (para141.27) | V CPC | ||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment