Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1242 (0.05 seconds)
Documents citing Randhir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 February, 1982

Sujit Gangopadhyay vs Telecom Disputes Settlement And ... on 12 July, 2022

42.4. Persons holding the same rank/designation (in different departments), but having dissimilar powers, duties and responsibilities, can be placed in different scales of pay and cannot claim the benefit of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" (see Randhir Singh case [Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 119] , State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. [State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn., (2002) 6 SCC 72 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 822] and Hukum Chand Gupta case [Hukum Chand Gupta v. ICAR, (2012) 12 SCC 666 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 493] ). Therefore, the principle would not be automatically invoked merely because the subject and reference posts have the same nomenclature.
Delhi High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

Rajesh Pant vs Telecom Disputes Settlement And ... on 12 July, 2022

42.4. Persons holding the same rank/designation (in different departments), but having dissimilar powers, duties and responsibilities, can be placed in different scales of pay and cannot claim the benefit of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" (see Randhir Singh case [Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 119] , State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. [State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn., (2002) 6 SCC 72 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 822] and Hukum Chand Gupta case [Hukum Chand Gupta v. ICAR, (2012) 12 SCC 666 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 493] ). Therefore, the principle would not be automatically invoked merely because the subject and reference posts have the same nomenclature.
Delhi High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

Nishant Chawla vs Telecom Disputes Settlement And ... on 12 July, 2022

42.4. Persons holding the same rank/designation (in different departments), but having dissimilar powers, duties and responsibilities, can be placed in different scales of pay and cannot claim the benefit of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" (see Randhir Singh case [Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 119] , State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. [State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn., (2002) 6 SCC 72 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 822] and Hukum Chand Gupta case [Hukum Chand Gupta v. ICAR, (2012) 12 SCC 666 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 493] ). Therefore, the principle would not be automatically invoked merely because the subject and reference posts have the same nomenclature.
Delhi High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

Balwant Singh Parihar And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 24 March, 2006

In the basic judgment of Randhir Singh's case (supra), cited by the counsel for the petitioners, the Supreme Court has considered the fact that equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Government and expert bodies like the Pay Commission and not for the courts. The relevant paragraph No. 6 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 28 - Cited by 4 - P S Asopa - Full Document

Laishram Ibomcha Singh vs State Of Manipur And Anr. on 5 April, 2007

12. The High Court did not have the advantage of a decision of this Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, to which one of us was a party, which evolved the equality doctrine embodied in Article 39(d) and read Article 14 into it; while considering the complaint of a driver who was originally in the Army but later employed as a driver constable in Delhi Police Force under the Delhi Administration and who was denied the same pay as was available to the other drives in the service of the Delhi Administration. This Court allowed the writ petition and directed the concerned authorities to pay the petitioners in that case. Salary at least equal to the drivers of the Railway Protection Force. Disagreeing with the plea, put forward by the Union of India this Court observed as follows: (SCC pp. 621-22, para 6).
Gauhati High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - T N Singh - Full Document

Om Prakash Verma vs Union Of India on 28 March, 2012

35. Most respectfully, it may be submitted that the benefit of the judgment in the case of Randhir Singh V. Union of India (supra) was granted by the Honble Apex Court without adverting anywhere in the judgment to the extra emoluments and perquisites enjoyed by the drivers of the Delhi Police in their posts, when the three Judge Bench of the Honble Apex Court had laid down the law of equal pay for equal work in the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Others (supra). However, as has been laid down by the Honble Apex Court itself, that since pay includes allowances in the nature of rations/ration allowances and other perquisites in the nature of extra days of leave, even if the total equality and congruence of the nature of work is established between the drivers of Delhi Police on the one hand and the civilian drivers and Artisan drivers of the RPF on the other hand, even then, while computing the equal pay in their cases, the monetary value of the allowances of extra uniforms, rations/ration allowances, and the monetary value of 30 days extra leave has to be taken into account, even in accordance with the judgment in the case of Randhir Singh cited (supra), though the Honble Apex Court had not said so in as many words in that particular judgment. However, since the law as laid down in different judgments has to be read together, it is held that the applicant is not entitled to the relief as prayed for in this OA, and the OA is liable to be rejected.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

The State Of Bihar vs The Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle ... on 10 May, 2019

70. While considering the aforesaid issue this Court had noted all the decisions on the point of pay parity from Randhir Singh vs. Union of India31 and then in para 42 arrived at conclusions. The limitations or qualifications to the application of doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’ were also considered in para 42 and from para 43 onwards, Claim for pay parity raised by temporary employees (differently designated as work-
Supreme Court of India Cites 133 - Cited by 110 - U U Lalit - Full Document

Dr. Gangesh Dixit And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 2 April, 2026

42.2. The mere fact that the subject post occupied by the claimant is in a different department vis--vis the reference post does not have any bearing on the determination of a claim under the principle of equal pay for equal work. Persons discharging identical duties cannot be treated differently in the matter of their pay, merely because they belong to different departments of the Government (see Randhir Singh case [Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 119] and D.S. Nakara case [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145] ).
Allahabad High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - S S Shamshery - Full Document

Ram Rattan vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 11 December, 2012

However, in Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers v. Union of India (1988) 3 SCC 91 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 673 : (1988) 7 ATC 591, Mewa Ram Kanojia v. AIIMS (1989) 2 SCC 235 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 329 : (1989) 10 ATC 51, V. Markendeya v. State of A.P (1989) 3 SCC 191 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 454 : (1989) 11 ATC 3, Harbans Lal v. State of H.P. (1989) 4 SCC 459 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 71 : (1989) 11 ATC 869, State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia (1989) 1 SCC 121 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 71 : (1988) 8 ATC 929, Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers-- Union v. Union of India (1991) 1 SCC 619 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 621 : (1991) 16 ATC 507, GDA v. Vikram Chaudhary (1995) 5 SCC 210 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1226 : (1995) 31 ATC 129, State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh (1996) 11 SCC 77 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 210, State of Haryana v. Surinder Kumar (1997) 3 SCC 633 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 844, Union of India v. K.V. Baby (1998) 9 SCC 252 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 539 , State of Orissa v. Balaram Sahu (2003) 10 1 SCC 250 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 65, Utkal University v. Jyotirmayee Nayak (2003) 4 SCC 760 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 598, State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj (2003) 6 SCC 123 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 828, Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das (2003) 11 SCC 658 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 160, Apangshu Mohan Lodh v. State of Tripura (2004) 1 SCC 119 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 10, State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh (2006) 9 SCC 321 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1804, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Dan Bahadur Singh (2007) 6 SCC 207 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 441, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. L.V. Subramanyeswara (2007) 5 SCC 326 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 143 and Canteen Mazdoor Sabha v. Metallurgical & Engg. Consultants (India) Ltd. (2007) 7 SCC 710 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 758, the Court consciously and repeatedly deviated from the ruling of Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 618 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 119 and held that similarity in the designation or quantum of work are not determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales and that before entertaining and accepting the claim based on the principle of equal pay for equal work, the Court must consider the factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment, the qualifications, the nature of work, the value judgment, responsibilities, reliability, experience, confidentiality, functional need, etc.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 39 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next