H. K. SEMA, R. V. RAVEENDRAN
N. D. P. NAMBOODRIPAD (DEAD) BY LRS. – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
Judgment
R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. - These appeals by special leave are filed against the judgment dated 10 - 7 - 1997 in Writ Appeal No. 804 of 1992 and the order f: dated 10 - 11 - 1997 in Review Petition No. 299 of 1997 passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court.
2. The appellant entered the Kerala Higher Judicial Service as a directly recruited District and Sessions Judge and was later elevated as a Judge of the Kerala High Court in the year 1972. He retired on 31 - 7 - 1980 with 23 years of pensionable service which included 8 years of service as a Judge of the High Court. At the time of his retirement, the appellant was in receipt of a total emolument of Rs 4237 comprising basic pay of Rs 3500, dearness allowance of Rs 437 and special allowance of Rs 300.
3. The pension payable to the High Court Judges is governed by Chapter III of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (for short "the Act"). Clause (b) of sub - section (1) of Section 15 provides that every Judge who was not a member of the Indian Civil Service but has held any other pensionable post under the Union or a State, shall, on his retirement, be paid a pension in accordance with the scale and pr
N.D.P. Namboodripad v. Union of India (2004) 5 SCC 259 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 743
Hindustan Aluminum Corpn. v. State of U.P. (1981) 3 SCC 578: 1981 SCC (Tax) 280: AIR 1981 SC 1649
M.L. Jain (I) v. Union of India (1985) 2 SCC 355: 1985 SCC (L&S) 441: AIR 1985 SC 619
Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. (1987) 1 SCC 424
M.L. Jain (II) v. Union of India (1988) 4 SCC 121 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 908: AIR 1989 SC 669
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.