text stringlengths 5 5.67k |
|---|
It was further held that the State cannot by an executive order curtail or abolish altogether the right of the public servant to receive pension. PRE |
This decision was given by a learned Single Judge. Ratio |
This decision was taken up in Letters Patent Appeal by the Union of India. Ratio |
The Letters Patent Bench in its decision in Union of India vs Bhagwant Singh (2)approved the decision of the learned Single Judge. Ratio |
The Letters Patent Bench held that the pension granted to a public servant on his retirement is "property" within the meaning of article 3 1 (1) of the Constitution and he could be deprived of the same only by an authority of law and that pension does not cease to be property on the mere denial or cancellation of it. P... |
It was further held that the character of pension as "property" cannot possibly undergo such mutation at the whim of a particular person or authority. PRE |
The matter again came up before a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in K. R. Erry vs The State of Punjab (1). PRE |
The High Court had to consider the nature of the right of an officer to get pension. Ratio |
The majority quoted with approval the principles laid down in the two earlier decisions of the same High Court, referred to above, and held that the pension is not to be treated as a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that the right to superannuation pension including its amount is a va... |
It was further held by the majority that even though an opportunity had already been afforded to the officer on an earlier occasion for showing cause against the imposition of penalty for lapse or misconduct on his part and he has been found guilty, nevertheless, when a cut is sought to be imposed in the quantum of pen... |
This view regarding the giving of further opportunity was expressed by the learned Judges on the basis of the relevant Punjab Civil Service Rules. Ratio |
But the learned Chief Justice in his dissenting judgment was not prepared to agree with the majority that under such circumstances a further opportunity should be given to an officer when a reduction in the amount of pension payable is made by the State. Ratio |
It is not necessary for us in the case on hand, to consider the question whether (1) A. T. R. 1962 Punjab Punjab 1.(3) I. L. R. 1967 Punjab & Haryana 278 652 before taking action by way of reducing or denying the pension on the basis of disciplinary action already taken, a further notice to show cause should be given t... |
That question does not arise for consideration before us. Ratio |
Nor are we concerned with the further question regarding the procedure, if any, to be adopted by the authorities before reducing or withholding the pension for the first time after the retirement of an officer. Ratio |
Hence we express no opinion regarding the views expressed by the majority and the minority Judges in the above Punjab High Court decision, on this aspect. Ratio |
But we agree with the view of the majority when it has approved its earlier decision that pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that, on the other hand, the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in a government servant. Ratio |
This Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs Ranojirao Shinde and another (1) had to consider the question whether a "cash grant" is "property" within the meaning of that expression in articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. PRE |
This Court held that it was property, observing "it is obvious that a tight to sum of money is property". PRE |
Having due regard to the above decisions, we are of the opi nion that the right of the petitioner to receive pension is property under article 3 1 (1) and by a mere executive order the State had no power to withhold the same. Ratio |
Similarly, the said claim is also property under article 19(1)(f) and it is not saved by sub article (5) of article 19. Ratio |
Therefore, it follows that the order dated June 12, 1968 denying the petitioner fight to receive pension affects the fundamental right of the petitioner under articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution, and as such the writ petition under article 32 is maintainable. Ratio |
It may be that under the Pension Act (Act 23 of 1871) there is a bar against a civil court entertaining any suit relating to the matters mentioned therein. Ratio |
That does not stand in the way of a Writ of Mandamus being issued to the State to properly consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension according to law. Ratio |
To conclude: No relief can be granted in respect of the orders dated September 2, 1953 and March 5, 1960 as they are already covered by the decision of the Patna High Court dated May 4, 1967 in Second Appeal No. 640 of 1967. Ratio |
Even assuming that the contention of the petitioner that the order dated September 2, 1953 was not the subject of adjudication in the litigation leading up to the decision of the High Court, in the second appeal, is correct, nevertheless, no relief can be granted as the order has been passed as early as 1953. Ratio |
Further, the representations made (1) ; 653 by him for cancellation of the said order have been rejected long ago. Ratio |
Further, there is no infringement of any fundamental right of the petitioner by that order. Ratio |
The order dated August 5, 1966 declaring under r. 76 of the Service Code that the petitioner has ceased to be in government employ is set aside and quashed. Ratio |
The order dated June 12, 1968 stating that under r. 46 of the Pension Rules, the Department is unable to grant the petitioner pension is also set aside and quashed. Ratio |
As the petitioner himself claims that he has been retired from service on superannuation, a writ of mandamus will be issued to the respondents directing them to consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension according to law. Ratio |
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. RPC |
The petitioner is entitled to his costs from the first respondent, the State of Bihar. RPC |
V.P.S. Petition allowed. RPC |
Appeal No. 158 of 1968. FAC |
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated February 6, 1967 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No. 1987 of 1965. FAC |
WITH Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 1300 of 1972. FAC |
(Application by the Respondents for revocation of certificate granted by the High Court.) Soli Sorabji, K. D. Mehta, P. C. Bhartari and O. C. Mathur for the appellant. FAC |
M. C. Bhandare, Sunanda Bhandare and K. Rajendra Chowdhary, for respondents Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 95, 96, 98. FAC |
100, 101 to 104 and 108, The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. FAC |
This appeal, on certificate, by the Bombay Gas Co. Ltd., is directed against the judgment and order dated 931 February 6, 1967 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No. 1987 of 1965. FAC |
The High Court set aside the decision of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, in Payment of Wages Appeals Nos. 162 and 163 of 1962 and remanded the proceedings to the Additional Authority for calculating and awarding over time wages that may be due to the respondents Nos. 1 to 80 herein. RLC |
The High Court further reversed the decision of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, in Payment of Wages Appeal No. 61 of 1963 and restored the orders passed by the Third Additional Authority in favour of the respondents Nos. 8 1 to 1 1 8 herein, regarding their right to get wages for weekly off days. RLC |
C.M.P. No. 1300 of 1972 is an application filed by the, respondents in the civil appeal for revoking the certificate for leave to appeal to this Court granted by the High Court to the appellant herein. FAC |
We will briefly state the circumstances under which the appeal has come to this Court on certificate: The respondents Nos. 1 to 14 who were employed under the appellant as Syphon Pumpers filed on March 3, 1958 before the Additional Authority 14 applications under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter to b... |
On the same date the respondents Nos. 15 to 80, who were employed under the appellant as Mains workers filed before the same Authority 66 applications claiming over time wages for the same period. FAC |
The claim was substantially based under the provisions of the Bombay Shops, and Establishments Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred as the Establishments Act). FAC |
The appellant raised two, grounds of defence: (a) The claims were barred by the Award, Part II of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay dated March 30, 1950 in Reference (IT) No. 54 of 1949; and (b). FAC |
The applicants were not workmen covered by the Establishments Act. FAC |
On October 13, 1962, the Additional Authority held that the Award, referred to, by the Company was no bar to the said employees claiming over time wages. FAC |
But the said Authority accepted the contention of the Company that the applicants are not covered by the Establishments Act, which gives them the benefit of weekly off days with wages under section 18(3). FAC |
In this view the applications filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 80 herein were dismissed. FAC |
The said applicants filed before the Court of Small Causes. FAC |
Bombay, which was the Appellate Authority, Payment of Wages Appeals Nos. 162 and 163 of 1962 challenging the decision dated October 13, 1962 of the Additional Authority, .dismissing their applications. FAC |
During the years 1962 63, the respondents Nos. 81 to 118 herein, in the Civil Appeal filed 38 applications before the Third Additional Authority under section 15 of the Act claiming wages for weekly off days. FAC |
The said respondents were working in Mains, 932 Heating. FAC |
Appliances. FAC |
and Fitting Departments of the appellant. FAC |
Here again, the basis of the claim was under the provisions of the Establishments Act. FAC |
The appellant raised the same two defences as in respect of the claim for overtime wages. FAC |
The Third Additional Authority, by it,$ judgment dated April 26, 1963, held that the Award, Part II of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, dated March 30, 1950 in Reference (IT) No, 54 of 1949 is no bar to entertain the applications of the said employees. RLC |
The said authority further held that the district office in which the said applicants were employed is a "Commercial Establishment" under the Establishments Act and as such they were entitled to wages for weekly off days under section 18(3) of the said Act. RLC |
Accordingly, the, said authority directed the appellant to pay the amounts mentioned in the judgment to respondents Nos. 81 to II 8 and also to pay certain amount by way of corn sensation. FAC |
The appellant filed Payment ,of Wages Appeal No. 61 of 1963 before the Court of Small Causes, Bombay which was the Appellate authority, challenging the decision of the Third Additional Authority dated April 26, 1963 regarding payment of wages for 'weekly off days. FAC |
81 to 118 were heard together and .disposed of by a common judgment dated February 11, 1965 by the Appellate Authority, the Court of S mall Causes, Bombay. FAC |
It was held that the claims of all the workmen for over time wages and wages for weekly off days were barred by the Award, Part II dated March 30, 1950 of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, in Re ference (IT) No. 54 of 1949 and that the. RLC |
said award was still in force and binding on the parties. RLC |
Accordingly, the Payment of Wages Appeals Nos. 162 and 163 of 1962 were dismissed and Payment of Wages Appeal No. 61 of 1963 was allowed. RLC |
It must however be stated that though the Appellate Authority, .the FAC |
under the Establishments Act., The Appellate Authority held that the district office, of the Company though situated,within the,, compound of the factory is a "Commercial Establishment" under the Establishments Act. RLC |
Accordingly, the Court of Small Causes agreed 'With the finding of the Third 933 Additional Authority, that the workman were governed by the provisions of the Establishments Act and as such are entitled to the benefit conferred on them by that Act. FAC |
However, in view of the fact that the Claims of all the workmen were held to be barred in view of the award in Reference (IT) No. 54 of 1949, the workmen 's appeals were dismissed and the appeal , filed by the company was allowed. FAC |
As stated earlier, the decision of the court of small causes resulted in the dismissal of all the applications filed by the workmen before both the Additional Authority and the Third Additional Authority. FAC |
All the 118 workmen filed before the Bombay High Court, Special Civil Application. FAC |
No. 1987 of 1965 under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the judgment of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, dated February 11, 1965. FAC |
By its judgment and order dated February 6, 1967, the High Court held that neither the claim of the respondents Nos. 1 to 80 for over time wages, nor the claim of the respondents Nos. 8 1 to 1 1 8 for wages for weekly off days was barred by the Award, Part 11, dated March 30, 1950 in Reference (IT) No. 54 of 1949. RLC |
So far as the respondents Nos. 1 to 80 were concerned, the High Court has set aside the judgment of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, ;is well as the order dated October 13, 1962 of the Additional Authority and remanded their applications to the latter for ascertaining and decreasing the amount of over time wages that... |
Regarding the respondents Nos. 8 1 to II 8 the High Court has set aside the judgment of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, and restored the order dated April 26, 1963 of the Third Additional Authority recognising their claim for wages for weekly off days. FAC |
It is seen from the judgment of the High Court that the Company did not challenge the finding of the Court of Small Causes that the workmen are employed in a "Commercial Establishment" and as such are entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Establishments Act. FAC |
The High Court has also stated that the reason given by the counsel appearing for the Company for not challenging that finding was that it was not open to the Company, which was I respondent in the writ petition to challenge the said finding in those proceedings. FAC |
Therefore the High Court has adjudicated upon the only question whether the Award bars the claims of the workmen as held by the Court of Small Causes. FAC |
On this point, as pointed out earlier, the High Court disagreed with the decision of the Court of Small Causes. FAC |
The appellant filed on April 6, 1967 in the High Court Application No. 869 of 1967 praying, for the grant of a certificate of fitness to enable it, to appeal to this Court In the application of the appellant, after setting out the nature of the applications filed before 934 the Additional and Third Additional Authoriti... |
It was further stated that in any event the case is a fit one for appeal to this Court. Ratio |
Accordingly, the appellant prayed for the grant of a certificate that the amount or value of the subject matter in the said Special Civil Application, applications before the Additional and Third Additional Authorities, in the appeals before the Court of Small Causes and in dispute in the proposed appeal to this Court ... |
It will be seen, that though the appellant did not specify under which clause of article 133(1) the certificate was asked for, nevertheless a perusal of the averments made in the petition and the prayers made therein show that the appellant was asking for a certificate under clauses (a) and, or (c) of article 133(1). R... |
The High Court after hearing all parties, by its order dated October 19, 1967 directed a certificate to issue under article 133(1)(b) of the Constitution. Ratio |
The respondent ha; filed C.M.P. No. 1300 of 1972 requesting this Court to revoke the certificate granted to the appellant by the High Court on October 19, 1967. Ratio |
If the certificate is revoked, that will result in our holding that the appeal is not competent. Ratio |
Hence we will deal with the application for revocation of the certificate. Ratio |
In the affidavit filed in support of the application for revocation, the following averments are made: The appeal refers to two sets of claims which are separate and independent of each other one for over time wages and the other for wages for weekly off days. Ratio |
The applications in respect of these two different claims were filed by the concerned workmen before two different Authorities under the Act and were also disposed of separately by those Authorities. Ratio |
Separate appeals were preferred before the Court of Small Causes. Ratio |
Though a common judgment was delivered by the Court of Small Causes, the two sets of claims have been dealt with independently and separately in the judgment, as there were, separate and different appeals. Ratio |
The claim for weekly off days wages comes only to Rs. 6675 and that was the value of the subject matter before the Third Additional Authority and in the appeal before the Court of Small Causes as well as in the writ petition before the High Court. Ratio |
The same is the value of the subject 935 matter of the appeal to this Court. Ratio |
The value of the subject matter of the claim in respect of over time wages was only Rs. 10660 before the Additional Authority and in the appeals before the Court of Small Causes, in the High Court, as well as in the appeal before this Court. Ratio |
The value of the subject matter of neither of the two separate and distinct claims is Rs. 20,000; and even if both the claims are added, the value of the subject matter is less than Rs. 20,000. Ratio |
It was, in view of this circumstance, that the High Court did not grant a certificate under Art.133(1)(a). Ratio |
The High Court did not consider the case as a fit one for appeal to this Court, and hence no certificate was granted under Art.133(1)(c). Ratio |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.