Report No. 53
17. Decisions of High Courts.-
We ought to emphasise that the relevant reasoning adopted in the judgment indicates that the Supreme Court assumed that a suit for the recovery of pension may be barred under section 4 of the Pensions Act. The assumption thus made by the Supreme Court is fully justified by the fact that High Courts have unanimously construed section 4 as referring not only to political pensions, but also to pensions of retired Government servants, and have, on this basis, refused to entertain suits even by retired Government servants, in respect of pensions.1
1. (a) Shatikat Hussain v. State, AIR 1959 All 769;
(b) Buldeo Jha, v. Ganga Prasad, AIR 1959 Pat 17;
(c) V.K. Namboodri v. Union of India, AIR 1966 Ker 185 (Joseph & Raghavan JJ.) (reviews cases);
(d) Udho Ram v. Secretary of State, AIR 1936 Lah 85;
(e) Saffanam v. State, AIR 1963 Mad 49.
Back
