Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

No Pension for Retired Rajasthan Dairy Federation Workers: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 28 April 2023, Supreme Court of India has ruled, in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Dr. Hamir Singh Chouhan (Dead) by LRs & Ors., that employees of Rajasthan State Dairy Development Corporation (Dairy Federations) who retired from their jobs between 1999 to 2003 are not entitled to receive pensionary benefits from the State government.

The judgement came in response to a civil appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against a common judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court declaring the respondents to be entitled to receive pensionary benefits in essence by treating their lien to be continuing with the State Government up to the date of their permanent absorption with the Dairy Federations.

The State of Rajasthan had argued that the employees had ceased to have lien with the State Government after they were permanently absorbed in the Dairy Federations and, therefore, they were not entitled to receive pensionary benefits from the State government.

The respondents were initially appointed in the Animal Husbandry Department of Rajasthan and subsequently selected after following due selection process between 1976 to 1978 in the Dairy Federations. They continued to have lien with the parent department/State government as per the relevant G.O. and relevant Rules. They retired as employees of the Dairy Federations between 1999 to 2003 and received retirement benefits from the Dairy Federations.

However, after a period of six to nine years of their retirement from the Dairy Federations, they filed writ petitions before the High Court claiming pensionary benefits from the State government contending that their lien as a government servant in the Rajasthan government service had been continued.

The Supreme Court observed that the appointment orders of the respondents were very clear and they were appointed permanently after due selection, interview, and following the due selection process. The Court noted that there cannot be two liens on two substantive posts and that the respondents ceased to have lien with the State government once they were permanently absorbed and became an employee of the Dairy Federations.

The Court further held that the respondents shall not be entitled to the pensionary benefits from the State government as directed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench.

The judgement was delivered by a bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar on April 28, 2023. No costs were imposed in the case.

State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Dr. Hamir Singh Chouhan

Latest Legal News