https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156613 The court held in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the pension as a property right under Article 31 of the Constitution. It ruled that the revision of the pension without due process was unjust and arbitrary, emphasizing the importance of upholding fundamental rights. The court rejected the argument of delay in filing the petition and concluded that the petitioner was entitled to his pension as a matter of right. The cancellation of the pension was set aside, and costs were awarded to the petitioner. en-us Wed, 24 Jan 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Sep 2013 10:48:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156613 The court held in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the pension as a property right under Article 31 of the Constitution. It ruled that the revision of the pension without due process was unjust and arbitrary, emphasizing the importance of upholding fundamental rights. The court rejected the argument of delay in filing the petition and concluded that the petitioner was entitled to his pension as a matter of right. The cancellation of the pension was set aside, and costs were awarded to the petitioner. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 24 Jan 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156613