TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA
Satnam – Appellant
Versus
State of H. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
1. Pension is succor for post retirement period. It is not a bounty payable at will, but is a social welfare measure, as also a post retirement entitlement to maintain the dignity of an employee. This is what the Courts in India including the Hon’ble Supreme Court have repeatedly held.
2. The instant case is a glaring example where the respondents have flagrantly and in most brazen manner denied the petitioner part of his retiral benefits, constraining him to file the instant petition for the grant of following substantive reliefs:
(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the compensation to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for unnecessarily harassing him.”
3. The petitioner was
Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar
D.S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of India
State of Punjab and Anr. v. Iqbal Singh.(1976) 2 SCC 1
State of West Bengal v. Haresh C. Banerjee and Ors. (2006) 7 SCC 651
Devaki Nandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar and others AIR 1983 SC 1134
Ram Pal Singh vs. Union of India and others AIR 1984 SC 504
State of Kerala and others vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 SCC 429
Y.K. Singla vs. Punjab National Bank and others
State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Dhirendra Pal Singh (2017) 1 SCC 49
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.