Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing Randhir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 February, 1982

The Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. Literate ... vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 23 February, 1990

"There is no doubt that instructors and squad teachers are employees of the same employer doing work of similar nature in the same department; therefore, the appointment on a temporary basis or on regular basis does not affect the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. Article 39(d) con- tained in Part IV of the Constitution ordains the State to direct its policy towards securing equal pay for equal work for both men and women. Though Article 39 is included in the chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy, but it is fundamental in nature. The purpose of the Article is to fix certain social and economic goals for avoiding any discrimi- nation amongst the people doing similar work in matters relating to pay. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work has been implemented by this Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P. and 551 Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD. In view of these authorities it is too late in the day to disregard the doctrine of equal pay for equal work on the ground of the employment being temporary and the other being permanent in nature. A temporary or casual employee performing the same duties and functions is entitled to the same pay as paid to a permanent employee."
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 636 - M Rangnath - Full Document

P. Munisamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu, Represented By ... on 27 October, 1983

In Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982) 1 S.C.J. 283 : A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 897 a Driver-Constable in the Delhi Police force under the Delhi Administration had complained that the scale of pay applicable to him is considerably less than the scale of pay paid to a Driver in the Railway Protection Force, who is doing the same duty as the petitioner. A driver in the Railway Protection Force was paid in the scale of Rs. 260-400, but a driver-constable in the Delhi Police Force was paid in the scale of Rs. 210-270. The petitioner before the Supreme Court, therefore, complained that as he discharges the same duties as the drivers in other departments, he is entitled to be paid the same scale of pay and that there is no reason whatsoever to discriminate against the petitioner merely because he happens to be described as constable and is working in the Police Force. The Supreme Court found that the nature of the work done by the petitioner therein is the same as the work done by the drivers in other departments. Based on that finding, the Supreme Court held that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' squarely applies to the facts of that case and that therefore there cannot be any difference in the scales of pay applicable to the persons doing the same or similar work. In the context of the facts, as stated above, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of U.P. And Ors. vs Mohsin Ali [Alongwith Special Appeal ... on 11 October, 1999

"There is no doubt that instructors and squad teachers are employees of the same employer doing work of similar nature in the same department, therefore, the appointment on a temporary basis or on regular basis does not effect the doctrine of equal pay for equal work Article 36(d) contained in Part-IV of the Constitution ordains the State to direct its policy towards securing equal pay for equal work for both men and women. Though Article 39 is included in the Chapter on Directive Principles of State Police, but it is fundamental nature. The purpose of the Article is to fix certain social and economic goals for avoiding any discrimination amongst the people doing similar work in matters relating to pay. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work has been implemented by this Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, Dhirendra, Chamoli v. State of U.P. and Surendera Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD. In view of these authorities it is too late in the date to disregard the doctrine of equal pay for equal work on the ground of the employment being temporary and the other being permanent in nature, A temporary or casual employee performing the same duties and functions is entitled employee to the same pay as paid to a permanent."
Allahabad High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 45 - R P Nigam - Full Document

State Of U.P. And Others vs Diley Ram And Others on 18 September, 1999

"There is no doubt that instructors and squad teachers are employees of the same employer doing work of similar nature in the same department, therefore, the appointment on a temporary basis or on regular basis does not affect the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. Article 36(d) contained in Part IV of the Constitution ordains the State to direct its policy towards securing equal pay for equal work for both men and women. Though Article 39 is included in the Chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy, but it is fundamental in nature. The purpose of the Article is to fix certain social and economic goals for avoiding any discrimination amongst the people doing similar work in matters relating to pay. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work has been implemented by this Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U. P. and Surendra Singh v. Engineer in Chief, CPWD, in view of these authorities it is too late in the date to disregard the doctrine of equal pay for equal work on the ground of the employment being temporary and the other being permanent in nature. A temporary or casual employee performing the same duties and functions is entitled to the same pay as paid to a permanent employee."
Allahabad High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - R P Nigam - Full Document

Prayag Narain And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 24 February, 1998

For the benefit of those who do not seem to be aware of it, we may point out that the decision in Randhir Singh case has been followed In any number of cases by this Court and has been affirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in D. S. Nakara v. Union of India. (19831 2 SCR 165 : AIR 1983 SC 1301. The Central Government and the State Government and likewise, all public sector undertakings are expected to function like model and enlightened employer and arguments such as those which were advanced before us that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is an abstract doctrine which cannot be enforced in a Court of law should not come from the mouths of the State and the State Undertakings .....".
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - O P Garg - Full Document

Chambal Vikas Yantrik Sinchai ... vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 9 October, 1991

There is no doubt that instructors and squad teacher are employees of the same employer doing work of similar nature in the same department therefore the appointment on a temporary basis or on regular basis does not affect the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. Article 39 contained in Part IV of the Constitution ordains the State to direct its policy towards securing equal pay for equal work for both men and women. Though Article 39 is included in the chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy, but it is fundamental in nature. The purpose of the article is to fix certain social and economic goals for avoiding any discrimination amongst the people doing similar work in matters relating to pay. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work has been implemented by this Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P., and Surendra Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, CP.W.D. In view of these authorities it is too late in the day to disregard the doctrine of equal pay for equal work on the ground of the employment being temporary and the other being permanent in nature. A temporary or casual employee performing the same duties and functions is entitled to the same pay as paid to a permanent employee."
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Madhav Jagannath Shirsat vs M/O Defence on 2 May, 2019

-ant facts, it 1s re % ou this case law was based on diffe {tr not applicable in the present case. Similarly, in the other case saw cited 'by the applicants i.e. Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, (1982) 1 scC 618 decided on 22.02.1982 (Supra}, the Apex Court had viewed the classification between drivers of Delhi "Police Foree and Central Government 45 unreasonable, \ However, in the present case, not anily the Recruitment Rules and eligibility qualifications oA re are different for the posts of Model Makers an the Sand Model Makers, even their functional 4 responsibilities are distinct in many respects. Hence the diffe ce in the pay scales and 'grade pay are justified.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next