Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.36 seconds)
Documents citing Sandeep Pilania vs Arya Pritinidhi Shabha And Others on 1 September, 2017

Raj Kansal vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 13 August, 2019

"1. Without going into the merits of the claim seeking pay benefits under the 6th Pay Commission or the character of the respondent school this case would have to be remitted to the Educational Tribunal exercising territorial jurisdiction over the dispute. The designated authority in Haryana to hear cases of all disputes between the management and staff is the District Judge of the respective district/Sessions Divisions. There is ample judicial authority that disputes have to be sent to the Tribunal for determination which include the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Management of S.D. Model Senior Secondary School and another v. District Judge-cum- Service Tribunal and another, 2014 (1) S.C.T 652, the Division Bench in LPA No.1172 of 2013 in case titled Governing Body/Managing Committee and another v. Punjab School Education Board and others, decided on July 08, 2013 and a number of Single Benches in CWP No.12904 of 2013, Sandeep Pilania v. Arya Pritinidhi Shabha, Dayanand Math, Rohtak and others, decided on September 01, 2017; CWP No.11506 of 2013, anchan Sharma v. State of Haryana and others, decided on September 20, 2017; CWP No.58 of 2014, Sumit Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on November 04, 2016 and lastly CWP No.4177 of 2015, Dr. Mukul Gupta v. Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited and others, decided on May 29, 2015 which order and judgment is specific regarding financial benefits in terms of recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - H S Sethi - Full Document

Dav Colleges Retired Teachers ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 19 August, 2019

"1. Without going into the merits of the claim seeking pay benefits under the 6th Pay Commission or the character of the respondent school this case would have to be remitted to the Educational Tribunal exercising territorial jurisdiction over the dispute. The designated authority in Haryana to hear cases of all disputes between the management and staff is the District Judge of the respective district/Sessions Divisions. There is ample judicial authority that disputes have to be sent to the Tribunal for determination which include the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Management of S.D. Model Senior Secondary School and another v. District Judge-cum- Service Tribunal and another, 2014 (1) S.C.T 652, the Division Bench in LPA No.1172 of 2013 in case titled Governing Body/Managing Committee and another v. Punjab School Education Board and others, decided on July 08, 2013 and a number of Single Benches in CWP No.12904 of 2013, Sandeep Pilania v. Arya Pritinidhi Shabha, Dayanand Math, Rohtak and others, decided on September 01, 2017; CWP No.11506 of 2013, Kanchan Sharma v. State of Haryana and others, decided on September 20, 2017; CWP No.58 of 2014, Sumit Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on November 04, 2016 and lastly CWP No.4177 of 2015, Dr. Mukul Gupta v. Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited and others, decided on May 29, 2015 which order and judgment is specific regarding financial benefits in terms of recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - H S Sethi - Full Document

Prem Mangla vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 13 August, 2019

"1. Without going into the merits of the claim seeking pay benefits under the 6th Pay Commission or the character of the respondent school this case would have to be remitted to the Educational Tribunal exercising territorial jurisdiction over the dispute. The designated authority in Haryana to hear cases of all disputes between the management and staff is the District Judge of the respective district/Sessions Divisions. There is ample judicial authority that disputes have to be sent to the Tribunal for determination which include the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Management of S.D. Model Senior Secondary School and another v. District Judge-cum- Service Tribunal and another, 2014 (1) S.C.T 652, the Division Bench in LPA No.1172 of 2013 in case titled Governing Body/Managing Committee and another v. Punjab School Education Board and others, decided on July 08, 2013 and a number of Single Benches in CWP No.12904 of 2013, Sandeep Pilania v. Arya Pritinidhi Shabha, Dayanand Math, Rohtak and others, decided on September 01, 2017; CWP No.11506 of 2013, anchan Sharma v. State of Haryana and others, decided on September 20, 2017; CWP No.58 of 2014, Sumit Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on November 04, 2016 and lastly CWP No.4177 of 2015, Dr. Mukul Gupta v. Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited and others, decided on May 29, 2015 which order and judgment is specific regarding financial benefits in terms of recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - H S Sethi - Full Document

Sapna Sang vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 30 September, 2019

3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 06-10-2019 04:17:19 ::: CM-14580-CWP-2017 in -4- CWP-135-2012 Senior Secondary School and another v. District Judge-cum- Service Tribunal and another, 2014 (1) S.C.T 652, the Division Bench in LPA No.1172 of 2013 in case titled Governing Body/Managing Committee and another v. Punjab School Education Board and others, decided on July 08, 2013 and a number of Single Benches in CWP No.12904 of 2013, Sandeep Pilania v. Arya Pritinidhi Shabha, Dayanand Math, Rohtak and others, decided on September 01, 2017; CWP No.11506 of 2013, Kanchan Sharma v. State of Haryana and others, decided on September 20, 2017; CWP No.58 of 2014, Sumit Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on November 04, 2016 and lastly CWP No.4177 of 2015, Dr. Mukul Gupta v. Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited and others, decided on May 29, 2015 which order and judgment is specific regarding financial benefits in terms of recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - H S Sethi - Full Document

Kanchan Sharma vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 20 September, 2017

In pursuance of the same, affidavit of Shri Rajiv Rattan, Special Secretary to Government Haryana, School Education Department, Panchkula has been filed. It has been mentioned that on an earlier occasion in CWP No.58 of 2014 vide order dated 04.11.2016, the petition filed by the employees of DAV College of Engineering and Technology, Kanina (Mohindergarh), wherein directions had been sought to pay them senior scale and other benefits in terms of recommendations of 6th Pay Commission, had been relegated to the Educational Tribunal which is comprising of the District Judges in the concerned districts. Reference has also been made to other orders passed (Annexure R-3 to R-6) and order passed by this Court in CWP No.12904 of 2013 'Sandeep Pilania Vs. Arya Pritinidhi Shabha, Dayanand Math, Rohtak and others' and in connected cases on 01.09.2017 (Annexure R-7).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Rekha Kalia Bhardwaj vs State Of Punjab And Others on 4 April, 2019

1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 14-04-2019 15:06:45 ::: CWP No. 23440 of 2016 2 Service Tribunal and another, 2014 (1) S.C.T. 652, and in LPA No. 1172 of 2013, titled as Governing Body/Managing Committee and another v. Punjab School Education Board and others, decided on 08.07.2013 and various judgments of Single Benches passed in CWP No. 12904 of 2013 titled as Sandeep Pilania v. Arya Pritinidhi Shabha, Dayanand Math, Rohtak and others, decided on 01.09.2017, CWP No. 11506 of 2013 titled as Kanchan Sharma v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 20.09.2017, CWP No. 58 of 2014 titled as Sumit Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 04.11.2016 and CWP No. 4177 of 2015 titled as Dr. Mukul Gupta v. Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited and others, decided on 29.05.2015. Learned counsel for the respondents further cite a judgment passed in CWP No. 19854 of 2014, on 19.02.2018, wherein also the petitioners were relegated to avail the remedy before the Educational Tribunal.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - H S Sethi - Full Document

Sanjay Dabas And Ors vs D.G.P. Haryana & Ors on 19 February, 2018

1. Without going into the merits of the claim seeking pay benefits under the 6th Pay Commission or the character of the respondent school this case would have to be remitted to the Educational Tribunal exercising territorial jurisdiction over the dispute. The designated authority in Haryana to hear cases of all disputes between the management and staff is the District Judge of the respective district/Sessions Divisions. There is ample judicial authority that disputes have to be sent to the Tribunal for determination which include the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Management of S.D. Model Senior Secondary School and another v. District Judge-cum-Service Tribunal and another, 2014 (1) S.C.T 652, the 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 03-03-2018 23:15:55 ::: CWP No.19854 of 2014 -2- Division Bench in LPA No.1172 of 2013 in case titled Governing Body/Managing Committee and another v. Punjab School Education Board and others, decided on July 08, 2013 and a number of Single Benches in CWP No.12904 of 2013, Sandeep Pilania v. Arya Pritinidhi Shabha, Dayanand Math, Rohtak and others, decided on September 01, 2017; CWP No.11506 of 2013, Kanchan Sharma v. State of Haryana and others, decided on September 20, 2017; CWP No.58 of 2014, Sumit Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on November 04, 2016 and lastly CWP No.4177 of 2015, Dr. Mukul Gupta v. Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited and others, decided on May 29, 2015 which order and judgment is specific regarding financial benefits in terms of recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R N Raina - Full Document
1