Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 59 (0.61 seconds)
Documents citing P. Savita S/O Shri P.L. Savita vs Union Of India, Ministry Of Defence ... on 1 May, 1985

Mukesh Kumar Kaurav vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 5 December, 2025

12. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the Principal Bench has not considered the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Savitha & Others (supra). In that case, the issue was whether the Draughtsmen in the Ministry of Defence can be denied the pay of Senior Draughtmen even after their promotion. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it would be a great injustice to continue the appellants on the scales of pay of Draughtsmen even after promotion as Senior Draughtsmen, which is destructive of all incentive and initiative in the service. We find that in the case before hand, there is no such denial to the applicants.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Virendra Shankarrao Gonge And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 21 June, 2006

In view of discussion already undertaken above while considering the law expounded in P. Savita v. Union of India (supra), here higher pay scale of 680-1250 allowed only on length of total university service is not valid. Neither petitioners nor respondents have questioned propriety of giving higher start or salary to Senior Research Assistants on account of their more experience. Hence, the arguments of learned AGP are misconceived. The norm applied was also found incorrect as per minutes of Vice-Chancellors Co-oidination Committee dated 20-7-1982 and 18-2-1988.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

A. Dhinakaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 November, 2006

14. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the decision reported in (P.Satita and others vs. Union of India and others) All India Service Law Journal 1985 (2) 331. In the said case, senior draughtsmen working in the same department, discharging same duties and works were divided into two groups and given different pay scales, the Honourable Supreme Court held it as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground that it was not a different grades created on the ground of higher qualification, either academic or otherwise or entitlement by any other criteria. The said Judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstance of the case.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A Kulasekaran - Full Document

Dipali Mitra & Ors vs Coal India Limited & Ors on 17 October, 2023

And what is the nexus between the qualification and the object sought to be achieved? In my view, there is none. If any one suggests that a son married or unmarried would look after the parent and his brothers and sisters, and that a married sister would not do as much, my answer will be that experience has been otherwise. Not only that the experience has been otherwise but also judicial notice has been taken thereof by a Court no less than the Apex Court in the case of Savita v. Union of India reported in (1996) 2 SCC 380 wherein Their Lordships quoted with approval a common saying; 'A son is a son until he gets a wife. A daughter is a daughter throughout her life'."
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - S B Saraf - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next