M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, K.LAKSHMAN
R. Sumathi – Appellant
Versus
Telangana State Housing Board – Respondent
ORDER :
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.
These cases highlight the travails of former employees of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (for short ‘APHB’) and their widows/legal heirs with regard to settlement of pension and other pensionary benefits after bifurcation of the erstwhile composite State of Andhra Pradesh into the separate new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 02-06-2014.
2. The composite State of Andhra Pradesh had enacted the APHB Act, 1956 to make schemes and carry on works for the purpose of dealing with and satisfying the need of housing accommodation in the said State. Under Sec.3 of the said Act, by notification, the APHB was created as a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal competent to acquire and hold both moveable and immoveable property.
3. One of the service benefits allowed to the employees of the APHB who retire on superannuation was Pension.
4. The composite State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into the new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh under the A.P. Reorganisation
A.P. State Council for Higher Education vs. Union of India and others
Balram Gupta v. Union of India
Bhupendra Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam
Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar
Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab
Kapila Hingorani (I) v. State of Bihar
Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India
State of Haryana v. Piara Singh
State of Jharkhand v. Harihar Yadav
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.