Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 513 (3.19 seconds)
Documents citing State Of U.P. & Ors vs J.P. Chaurasia & Ors on 27 September, 1988

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

42.7. Persons performing the same or similar functions, duties and responsibilities, can also be placed in different pay scales. Such as -- "selection grade", in the same post. But this difference must emerge out of a legitimate foundation, such as -- merit, or seniority, or some other relevant criteria (see State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia [State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, (1989) 1 SCC 121 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 71] ).
Delhi High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

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

42.7. Persons performing the same or similar functions, duties and responsibilities, can also be placed in different pay scales. Such as -- "selection grade", in the same post. But this difference must emerge out of a legitimate foundation, such as -- merit, or seniority, or some other relevant criteria (see State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia [State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, (1989) 1 SCC 121 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 71] ).
Delhi High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

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

42.7. Persons performing the same or similar functions, duties and responsibilities, can also be placed in different pay scales. Such as -- "selection grade", in the same post. But this difference must emerge out of a legitimate foundation, such as -- merit, or seniority, or some other relevant criteria (see State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia [State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, (1989) 1 SCC 121 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 71] ).
Delhi High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

Ksankupar Tynsong & Ors vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors on 29 November, 2019

In Union of India & ors v. S.L. Dutta & anr: (1991) 1 SCC, 505, Union of India & ors v. N.Y. Apte & ors: (1998) 6 SCC 741, State of U.P. & ors v. J.P. Chaurasia & ors: (1989) 1 SCC 121 and Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank v. D.B. Sharma & ors: (2001) 1 SCC 353, this Court held that the determination that two posts are equal or not, is a job of the Expert Committee and the court should not interfere with it unless the decision of the Committee is found to be unreasonable or arbitrary or made on extraneous considerations. More so, it is an executive function to fix the service conditions, etc. and lies within the exclusive domain of the rule-making authority.
Meghalaya High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Patel Rakeshbhai Prabhubhai vs State Of Gujarat on 18 February, 2022

C/SCA/9823/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2022 42.7 Persons performing the same or similar functions, duties and responsibilities, can also be placed in different pay-scales. Such as - 'selection grade', in the same post. But this difference must emerge out of a legitimate foundation, such as - merit, or seniority, or some other relevant criteria (see - State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia).
Gujarat High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 1 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

Sh. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 March, 2017

In Chaurasia case the question arose whether it was permissible to have two different pay scales in the same cadre of Bench Secretaries of the Allahabad High Court who were for all practical purposes performing similar duties and having same responsibilities. The Court held that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" has no mechanical application in every case of similar work. Article 14 permits reasonable classification founded on rational basis. It is, therefore, not impermissible to provide two different pay scales in the same cadre on the basis of selection based on merit with due regard to experience and seniority. It was pointed out that in service, merit or experience could be the proper basis for classification to promote efficiency in administration and he or she learns also by experience as much as by other means. Apart from that, the Court has expressly observed that the higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues may also be allowed.
Delhi High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 5 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Mohd. Ramjan & Another vs State Of U.P. & Others on 12 December, 2018

44.9 In the Uttar Pradesh Land Development Corporation case : (2010) 7 SCC 739 this Court noticed, that the Respondents were employed on contract basis, on a consolidated salary. But, because they were actually appointed to perform the work of the post of Assistant Engineer, this Court directed the employer to pay the Respondents wages, in the minimum of the pay-scales ascribed for the post of Assistant Engineer."
Allahabad High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 1 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Hira Nand vs Union Of India And Others on 22 September, 2017

J.P. Chaurasia (supra) related to question of pay-scales of Bench Secretaries and Section Officers in the Allahabad High Court. It was observed that Bench Secretaries may be doing the same work, but their quality of work may differ and therefore, the classification made under the Rules cannot be held to be violative of "equal pay for equal work". This was notwithstanding the fact that subsequently the State Government had granted equal pay-scale to both posts.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S Khanna - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next