https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275536 The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the respondent, a former Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, was entitled to pension from the State Government for his service as President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Court recognized the State Government's power to issue executive orders to fill gaps in rules, ensuring they are not inconsistent with statutory provisions. The appeal by the Accountant General was deemed maintainable, as the Accountant General has authority over audit and entitlement functions. However, a separate judgment highlighted the necessity of specific rules for pension grants and the inadmissibility of combining different services for pension calculation, leading to the matter being referred for further consideration. en-us Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Oct 2018 14:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275536 The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the respondent, a former Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, was entitled to pension from the State Government for his service as President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Court recognized the State Government's power to issue executive orders to fill gaps in rules, ensuring they are not inconsistent with statutory provisions. The appeal by the Accountant General was deemed maintainable, as the Accountant General has authority over audit and entitlement functions. However, a separate judgment highlighted the necessity of specific rules for pension grants and the inadmissibility of combining different services for pension calculation, leading to the matter being referred for further consideration. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275536