UNION OF INDIA Vs. MANIK LAL BANERJEE
LAWS(SC)-2006-7-46
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on July 26,2006

UNION OF INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
MANIK LAL BANERJEE Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

MAHARAJA LAKSHMAN SEN MEMORIAL COLLEGE VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2013-10-28] [REFERRED TO]
KISHIN S. LOUNGANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2016-12-148] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. SASTI KUMAR CHOWDHURY [LAWS(CAL)-2010-1-59] [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH GULIA VS. THE SONEPAT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2013-1-349] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SHRI BURO MAHARA AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LTD VS. SECOND LABOUR COURT [LAWS(CAL)-2010-12-80] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. SESHACHALAM [LAWS(SC)-2007-9-98] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF FUTURA POLYESTERS LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER I ADDL LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-2008-7-256] [REFERRED TO]
ASHA MALIK VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2008-2-56] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. KERALA VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL [LAWS(KER)-2022-10-205] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RAMESH CHAND [LAWS(DLH)-2021-7-159] [REFERRED TO]
Yudhisthir Mahato VS. State of Jharkhand [LAWS(JHAR)-2012-1-149] [REFERRED TO]
ONKAR NATH MONDAL VS. SANTI MONDAL [LAWS(CAL)-2019-9-211] [REFERRED TO]
PREM KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-1-81] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SURAT MISHRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2013-7-64] [REFERRED TO]
HAFIZULLAH S/O LATE SHEIKH BARKATULLAH VS. PURAN CHAND JAIN S/O LATE SHEIKHAR CHAND JAIN [LAWS(MPH)-2013-7-43] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. SASTI KUMAR CHOWDHURY [LAWS(CAL)-2011-1-112] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. BURO MAHARA AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-4-135] [REFERRED TO]
HAFIZULLA VS. SHRI PURAN CHAND JAIN [LAWS(MPH)-2017-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
FARZANA BEGUM VS. INDER KUMAR JAIN [LAWS(MPH)-2017-7-215] [REFERRED TO]
K. RAJESWARA RAO S/O. LATE SRI RAMA PLOT NO.302, PREETI AVENUE, MYLARAGADDA, SEETHAPHAL MANDI, SECUNDERABAD VS. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MUSHIRABAD, HYDERABAD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR [LAWS(APH)-2016-9-52] [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. SHAIKH SIKANDHARBHAI HUSENBHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2007-3-70] [REFERRED TO]
JAHANGIR AHMAD MALIK VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2006-12-17] [REFERRED TO]
HAMEEDA BEGUM VS. CHAMPA BAI JAIN [LAWS(MPH)-2009-2-28] [REFERRED TO]
SIMBHOLI SUGARS LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2010-4-132] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION VS. RAJESH KUMAR JINDAL [LAWS(SC)-2019-1-33] [REFERRED TO]
ARCHANA DADARAO PETHKAR VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER [LAWS(BOM)-2013-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
SOUMIK DANDAPATH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2011-8-88] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL KUMAR NANGIA VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-10-268] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA SHEET GLASS LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2010-4-172] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S. B. Sinha, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The Respondent was a Station Master working in Sodepur Railway Station, Eastern Railway. He retired on 31.1.1995. He was paid 16 1/2 months emoluments comprising basic salary and 20% dearness allowance towards Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity.
(3.)One Pritam Singh who is said to be similarly situated, however, claimed and obtained such benefits of gratuity in terms of the provisions contained in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short "the 1972 Act") in terms whereof the element of dearness allowance was calculated at the rate of 125% of basic salary. A special leave petition filed thereagainst was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 13.2.2002 holding:
"This is not a fit case for our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. Hence the appeal is dismissed."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.