Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 65 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing Paluru Ramkrishnaiah & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 March, 1989

Krishna Kumar Deepak And Other vs M/O Finance on 10 September, 2025

7. This Court in Paluru Ramakrishnaiah & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. [(1989) 2 SCR 92 at page 109] considered the direction issued by the High Court and upheld that there has to be "no pay for no work", i.e., a person will not be entitled to any pay and allowance during the period for which he did not perform the duties of higher post, although after due consideration, he was given a proper place in the gradation list having been deemed to be promoted to the higher post with effect from the date his junior was promoted. He will be entitled only to step up the scale of pay retrospectively from the deemed date but is not entitled to the payment of arrears of the salary.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Krishan Chander vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 5 March, 2010

In support thereof, the learned counsel invited our attention to the decisions of this Court in Paluru Ramkrishnaiah & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. [(1989) 2 SCC 541], Virender Kumar, G.M., Northern Railways Vs. Avinash Chandra Chadha & Ors.[ (1990) 3 SCC 472] , State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. O.P. Gupta & Ors. [ (1996) 7 SCC 533], A.K. Soumini Vs. State Bank of Travancore & Anr.[ (2003) 7 SCC 238] and Union of India & Anr. Vs. Tarsem Lal & Ors. [ (2006) 10 SCC 145].
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Gauri Shankar Sharma vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi on 5 February, 2010

In support thereof, the learned counsel invited our attention to the decisions of this Court in Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India, (1989) 2 SCC 541, Virender Kumar v. Avinash Chandra Chadha, (1990) 3 SCC 472, State of Haryana v. O.P. Gupta, (1996) 7 SCC 533, A.K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore, (2003) 7 SCC 238 and Union of India v. Tarsem Lal, (2006) 10 SCC 145.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Smt. Savita Sharma Daughter Of Sh. Satya ... vs Union Of India on 3 July, 2017

6. This Court in Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India , considered the direction issued by the High Court and upheld that there has to be "no pay for no work", i.e., a person will not be entitled to any pay and allowance during the period for which he did not perform the duties of higher post, although after due consideration, he was given a proper place in the gradation list having been deemed to be promoted to the higher post with effect from the date his junior was promoted. He will be entitled only to step up the scale of pay retrospectively from the deemed date but is not entitled to the payment of arrears of the salary.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

G. Divakaran Nair vs Union Of India on 14 March, 2013

3. The respondents in their reply statement submitted that the promotions effected vide order dated 19.11.2010 were only notional with effect from the date indicated against the names of each officer as specified in the order. Hence, the benefit of higher pay and allowances was given only from the date of assuming the charge as Deputy Commissioner. As the promotions were purely adhoc and notional with effect from the date in the past the provisions of Rule FR 22(1)(a)(i) do not apply in the instant case. No arrears have been paid in the Bangalore Commissionerate in such cases. Further in respect of other formations no information is so far available. The principle of no work and no pay would apply to promotion granted with retrospective effect as per Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Shri Paluru Ramakrishnaiah Vs. Union of India.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sanjib Das vs O F B on 29 February, 2024

4. The applicant has filed a rejoinder to the reply of the respondents wherein he has denied the statements made by the respondents in their reply. It is submitted by the applicant that as per the latest judicial propositions, the principle of "No work and no pay" is not applicable to the instant case as the applicant was kept away from work in the higher post by the authorities for no fault of him. It is further submitted that the respondents unnecessarily elaborated the contents of the charge memorandum dated 14.09.2017 which was assailed owing to the impermissibility in issuance of the same against the applicant vide O.A.No.91/2020 which was decided on 13.01.2021 in favour of the applicant with the above quoted directions. The applicant has also submitted that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paluru Ramkrishnaiah & Others vs. Union of India & Others (supra) is not applicable to this case as the applicants therein had neither been considered by the 6 DPC for promotion nor their promotions were considered under the "sealed cover"
Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.I. Surender Singh Yadav No.D/2798 ... vs Commissioner Of Police on 12 May, 2014

7. This Court in Paluru Ramakrishnaiah v. Union of India, (1989) 2 SCR 92 at page 109 : (AIR 1990 SC 166 at p. 195), considered the direction issued by the High Court and upheld that there has to be "no pay for no work", i.e., a person will not be entitled to any pay and allowance during the period for which he did not perform the duties of higher post although after due consideration, he was given a proper place in the gradation list having been deemed to be promoted to the higher post with effect from the date his junior was promoted. He will be entitled only to step up the scale of pay retrospectively from the deemed date but is not entitled to the payment of arrears of the salary.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Smt. Savita Sharma Daughter Of Sh. Satya ... vs Union Of India on 3 July, 2017

6. This Court in Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India , considered the direction issued by the High Court and upheld that there has to be "no pay for no work", i.e., a person will not be entitled to any pay and allowance during the period for which he did not perform the duties of higher post, although after due consideration, he was given a proper place in the gradation list having been deemed to be promoted to the higher post with effect from the date his junior was promoted. He will be entitled only to step up the scale of pay retrospectively from the deemed date but is not entitled to the payment of arrears of the salary.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S I Surender Singh Yadav vs Comm. Of Police on 26 February, 2016

16. It is to be seen that this Tribunal after noting the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in O. P. Gupta (supra), Paluru Ramakrishnaiah, (supra), and Virender Kumar (supra) observed that a person will not be entitled to any pay and allowance during the period for which he did not perform the duties of higher post although after due consideration, he was given a proper place in the gradation list having been deemed to be promoted to the higher post w.e.f. the date his junior was promoted and that he will be entitled only to step up the scale of pay 10 retrospectively from the deemed date but is not entitled to the payment of arrears of the salary, held that once the applicant has assigned seniority of 1996 batch of SI, his claim for stepping up of the pay needs to be examined by the respondents and accordingly directed the respondents to consider the stepping up pay of the applicant with reference to the pay of his immediate juniors, in view of the Judgement [(O.P.Gupta (supra)] referred in Para 2 of their counter and take a decision. In terms of the said direction, the respondents passed the impugned order.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next