Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1725 (1.64 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India And Anr vs S.B. Vohra And Ors on 5 January, 2004

Rajasthan High Court Assistant ... vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 9 February, 2023

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the State Government to reconsider the matter and take appropriate decision in respect of the recommendation sent by the Rajasthan High Court vide letter dated 04.02.2021 for grant of one advance increment to Chauffeur (Driver), Class-IV employees and Jamadar (Usher) of Rajasthan High Court w.e.f. 01.05.2013, to maintain parity with the other Ministerial Staff of Rajasthan High Court, keeping in view the observations/directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Another Vs. S.B. Vohra and Others (supra) in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kishan Pilley vs Mr. Iqbal Singh Bains Chief Secretary on 26 March, 2026

Therefore, if the Rules propose a scale of pay, the Government of Madhya Pradesh is bound to accept, until and unless cogent and adequate reasons are assigned to the contrary as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.B. Vohra (supra). In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that upgradation of pay scale of employees of the High Court were considered by the Central Government of India. The Government of India was having concern with the fact that employees of the other High Courts should not be dealt with differently in the matter of scale of pay and they should be at par with the employees of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10-04-2026 13:26:14 ConC No.3350 of 2018 15 the Delhi High Court in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court was made applicable in rem and not in personam. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the State Government was not so sincere to extend such benefit to the employees of the High Court, rather to continue to raise unnecessary objections which ought not to be raised.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - V Mishra - Full Document

Hari Charan Deka And Ors. vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 4 January, 2005

20. The Apex Court in Union of India v. Prativa Bonerjee (supra) ; High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan (supra); Union of India v. S.B. Vohra and Supreme Court employees Welfare Association (supra) has clearly held that the Chief Justice or any other Judges or officers authorised by him can make Rules relating to the service condition of the employees of the High Court including the pay, allowance, leave or pension, with the approval of the Governor of the State in so far it relates to the pay, etc.
Gauhati High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ms. Adeline Rodrigues vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 August, 2013

She has invited our attention to the observations made by the Apex Court in S.B. Vhora's case (supra) and the judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1016 of 2006. She submitted that this Judgment given by the Division 1 JT 2004(1) SC 38 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2014 03:49:44 ::: 12/30 (WP868.2008) Bench of the Gujarat High Court was challenged by the State of Gujarat in the Apex Court and, after the matter was heard for some time, the State of Gujarat withdrew the said SLP which they had filed in the Supreme Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - V M Kanade - Full Document

Class Iv Employees Association, High ... vs State Of U.P. And Others on 9 March, 2011

Reference may also be had to the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association vs. Union of India & Another reported in (1989) 4 SCC 187, wherein after noticing the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India vs. S.B. Vohra (Supra), in paragraph-57 it has been held as follows:
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A Tandon - Full Document

State Of U.P. And Another vs Class Iv Employees Association, High ... on 27 April, 2017

The four Judges Committee constituted by the Chief Justice to examine the claim made by Class IV Employees' Association of the High Court for granting a higher pay-scale at par with their counterparts in the Delhi High Court, had very minutely examined every aspect not only vis-a-vis the work performed by Class IV employees of the High Court with that of the State Secretariat but also with that of the Delhi High Court and the Committee found as a fact that the nature of the work performed by the Class IV employees of the High Court to maintain the dignity and standard of the High Court and to contribute to the smooth functioning in the Court was different and distinct. The Committee, therefore, concluded that Class IV employees of the High Court were entitled to the same pay-scale as was provided by the Delhi High Court to its Class IV employees. The Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. Vs. S.B. Vohra & Ors.9 emphasised that it is not always helpful to raise issues about financial implications vis-a-vis the effect of grant of a particular scale of pay on the ground that the same would have an adverse effect on other employees of the State and that scale of pay is fixed on certain norms, one of which is the quantum of work undertaken by the officers concerned as well as the extent of efficiency and integrity required to be maintained.
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - D Gupta - Full Document

Kishan Pilley vs Shri Satyendra Kumar Singh on 5 September, 2019

(1) Petitioners/employees shall submit a detailed representation within two weeks claiming upgradation of the pay scales and allowances at par to the employees of other High Courts in the light of the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and another vs. S.B. Vohra and others reported in (2004) 2 SCC 150 and State of U.P. and another vs. C.L. Agrawal and another reported in 15 (1997) 5 SCC 1 and the letter of Government of India, Ministry of Law & Justice (Department of Justice) dated
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - J K Maheshwari - Full Document

Latief Hussain Khan And Ors vs Ut Of Jk And Others on 17 December, 2024

In this regard, it would be useful to reproduce the relevant portion of the 2 Union of India Vs. S,B Vohra - (2004) 2 SCC 150 - paragraph 52 and 53 3 Union of India Vs. S,B Vohra - (2004) 2 SCC 150 - paragraph 46 Arif Hameed 4 Union I attest to the accuracy and of India Vs. S,B Vohra - (2004) 2 SCC 150 - paragraph 51 authenticity of this document 21.12.2024 6 WP (C) No.778/2022 Supreme Court's opinion in SB Vora wherein it held "It has to be further borne in mind that it is not always helpful to raise the question of financial implications vis-à-vis the effect of grant of a particular scale of pay to the officers of the High Court on the ground that the same would have adverse effect on other employees of the State."5
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next