Pension

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court allows mercy petition filed by widow of a deceased/dismissed employee seeking ‘compassionate allowance’ in view of R. 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Saurabh Banerjee, JJ. granted compassionate allowance to widow of Late Naik

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court | Irregular grant of bail may reflect upon competency of the Judge but does not mean that he is corrupt; Compulsory retirement set aside

Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Ravi Malimath, CJ. and Vishal Mishra, J. allowed a writ petition and issued several

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court| Consider compulsory licensing of breast cancer drug Ribociclib; HC directs Central Government

Kerala High Court: While adjudicating a petition filed by a breast cancer patient seeking to afford life-saving medicines which otherwise cost more

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

AFT | Can a defence person change the name of his wife twice in his service records? Tribunal answers

Armed Forces Tribunal (Lucknow Bench): The Division Bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava, Member (J) and Vice Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve, Member

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Cal HC | On failure of State’s duty to disburse the gratuity and pension amount on the due date, interest is obligatory

Calcutta High Court: Amrita Sinha, J. disposed of a petition which was filed by an Assistant Teacher who retired from service on

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Can State deny benefits of New Pension Scheme citing delayed appointments when the delay was not attributable to employees?  Supreme Court answers 

Supreme Court:  The Division Bench comprising Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ., reversed the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court and held that

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Can employer recover excess increment granted on account of error after 10 years of retirement of the employee? Supreme Court decides

Supreme Court: Reversing the concurrent findings of the Single Judge and Division Bench of Kerala High Court, the Bench of S. Abdul

Cases ReportedSCC Weekly

2022 SCC Vol. 3 Part 4

In Part 4 of 2022 SCC Volume 3, read some very pertinent Supreme Court decisions, involving aspects regarding reservation, accountability of social

High Court Round UpLegal RoundUp

110 Reports from 20 High Courts: Money Laundering, Child Marriages, Rule of Law, PC & PNDT Act, Adultery, Media Trial and more | April RoundUp 2022

110 Reports from 20 High Courts Allahabad High Court Money Laundering For money launderers “jail is the rule and bail is an

Case BriefsHigh Courts

If service of an employee at his superannuation is less than ten years, then previous temporary or officiating service needed to be counted for qualifying service for pension: Bom HC

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of R.D. Dhanuka and S.G. Mehare, JJ., expressed that, for condoning the interruption in service, the

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Ill-treatment meted out to respondent-mother, expelled from her own house, allegations of mental, physical and social abuse; Raj HC directs petitioner-son to vacate the house with his family

Rajasthan High Court: Sameer Jain J. dismissed the petition and refused to interfere with the impugned order. Factual Background The facts of

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Can employee claim Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity where a criminal appeal in corruption case is pending against him and sentence is suspended?  SC answers

Supreme Court: In an interesting case where the Division Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul* and M.M. Sundresh, JJ., was to answer whether

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Megh HC | Court decides on eligibility of family pension under Rule 48 of Meghalaya Civil Services Pension Rules of 1983

Meghalaya High Court: H. S. Thangkhiew J. dismissed the petition and affirmed that the petitioner was not eligible to avail family pension.

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

AFT grants war injury pension to soldier who sustained injuries resulting in disability during Operation Hifazat

Armed Forces Tribunal (Chandigarh Bench): The Bench of Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary (Member J) and Vice Admiral HCS Bisht (Member A), granted

Case BriefsSupreme Court

No Pensionary Benefits To WALMI Employees; Employees Of Autonomous Bodies Can’t Claim Benefits On A Par With Government Employees As Matter Of Right: SC

Supreme Court: Finding the Bombay High Court’s judgment directing the State to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of Water and

Case BriefsSupreme Court

In a tiff between “mighty Union of India” & “an ordinary soldier”, the soldier wins as SC holds that members of Ecological Task Force also entitled to Disability Pension

Supreme Court: In a case where a soldier, after serving in the Regular Army for 25 years, was re-enrolled in the Infantry

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Determination of Pension to be governed by the rule as it existed at the time of joining or the rule in force at the time of retirement? SC answers 

“Discrimination, which is not based on any reasonable classification, is violative of all canons of equality enshrined in the Constitution of India.”

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Pat HC | Breach of Trust and Misappropriation of Client’s money; HC denies bail to Advocate booked for enchasing compensation granted to his client by Railway Claims Tribunal

Patna High Court: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J., denied bail to the advocate booked for allegedly misappropriating his client’s money and committing breach

Case BriefsSupreme Court

­Can service rendered in Central and State government be considered a single block of pensionable service by condoning the break period between two services? SC answers

Supreme Court: The Division Bench of M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna*, JJ., condoned the non pensionable sandwiched period between pensionable services rendered

Case BriefsSupreme Court

 “Voluntary retirement v/s Resignation”; Supreme Court cogitates technicalities of legal terms and their implication in Armed Forces

“Having tendered ‘resignation’, the respondent had to suffer the consequences and could not be permitted to take ‘U’ turn and say that what the respondent wanted was ‘premature retirement’ and not ‘resignation’.”