- article 14: [r.m. lodha, s.a. bobde & s.b. deshmukh, jj] retiral benefit - classification between part time lecturers and full time teachers held, the part-time lecturers form a class by themselves and the said classification between part time lecturers and full-time teachers for purpose of granting retrial benefits cannot be said to be unconstitutional or bad in law -- consumer protection act, 1986 -- article 16; right to pension held, it is true that the pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer. however, the right of pension is always subject to the rules. it is not inherent in the employment. though pension is a payment for a past service rendered and it is a social welfare measure, but it is well settled that an employee is not entitled to pension de hors the rules. in the instant case the government resolution dated 21.7.1983 held that the said pension scheme is only applicable to the employees covered therein. a part time teacher, unfortunately, is not covered by the said scheme and, therefore, not entitled.
retirement benefit; differentiation between full time teachers and part-time lecturers government resolution providing for retrial benefits to full-time teaching staff part-time lecturer were not entitled to said benefit held, it is true that the pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer. however, the right of pension is always subject to the rules. it is not inherent in the employment. though pension is a payment for a past service rendered and it is a social welfare measure, but it is well settled that an employee is not entitled to pension de hors the rules. in the instant case the government resolution dated 21.7.1983 held that the said pension scheme is only applicable to the employees covered therein. a part time teacher, unfortunately, is not covered by the said scheme and, therefore, not entitled.
t. d. sugla, j. :the counsel are agreed that the issue whether the board was entitled in law to withdraw the approval already granted to k. m. scientific research centre under s. 35(1)(ii) with retrospective effect is covered by this courts judgment dt. 16th march, 1990 in w.p. no. 1653 of 1986 in the case of seksaria biswan sugar factory ltd. vs . iac [since reported at : [1990]184itr123(bom) ]. following the said judgment, it is held that the withdrawal of approval to the aforesaid institution with retrospective effect was invalid and the petitioners were, therefore, entitled to deduction under s. 35(1)(ii) in respect of the donation of rs. 25,00,000 made to the above institution.2. when the petition was filed, ito had only issued notice under s. 148 read with s. 147(b). during the pendency of the petition, the assessment has been completed inter alia disallowing the claim for reduction in respect of the aforesaid sum of rs. 25,00,000. accordingly, the departmental authorities are directed to delete the disallowance.3. the rule is made absolute as above.no order as to costs.