Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 60 (0.57 seconds)
Documents citing Reserve Bank Of India & Ors vs C.N. Sahasranaman & Ors on 30 April, 1986

R.D. Gupta & Ors. Etc vs Lt. Governor. Delhi Admn, & Ors. Etc on 7 August, 1987

The decisions in Reserve Bank of India v. C. Paliwal (supra) & Reserve Bank of India v. C.N. Sahasranaman (supra) relied on by Mr. Misra are of no assistance in this case because what we are concerned is whether diferent pay scales and allowances can be given to a section of the staff when they belong to a unified cadre and are governed by common re- cruitment policy, common seniority list and common transfer policy. It was urged by the learned counsel that the High Court was not justified in directing payment at the SS Committee pay scales for the employees of the electricity wing from June 1975 to May 1982 as that would result in the NDMC paying Rs.51,98,079 and in addition the payment of the arrears calculated on the difference in pay with reference to the SS Committee pay scales for the period between 1.4.1972 to 30.9.1973 would cost another Rs.7,30,062 thus in all casting a financial burden of more than Rs.50 lakhs on the NDMC. In the view we propose taking of the matter in the light of our conclusions, this grievance does not call for discussion.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 69 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Yogesh Kumar Sharma vs R N G E I T Jaipur And Ors on 13 August, 2025

principle could be directed to be implemented and in that context the appellants could be granted relief. This was met by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents by pointing out that the institution had not only implemented the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission but has also implemented the recommendations of the Fourth and Fifth Pay Commissions, though it was not bound to do so and there could be no grievance that teachers are being paid salaries that are not comparable with that of the teachers of government schools and aided schools. With reference to the pleadings, it was pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that the teachers of the first respondent institution, in fact, were enjoying some additional benefits which are not available to teachers of government institutions and aided institutions. It was also pointed out that out of the very many teachers in the school, only three of them, the appellants before us, have refused to enter into an agreement with the first respondent and as observed by this Court in Reserve Bank of India v. C.N. Sahasranaman [1986 Supp SCC 143 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 547 :
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - A Sharma - Full Document

R.P. Aggarwal vs Reserve Bank Of India on 30 March, 2012

"The scheme for promotion of Staff Officers Gr.'A', annexed to Administration Circular No.8 dated 13th May 1972, stands modified as per the judgment dated 30th April 1986 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3234 of 1981 - Reserve Bank of India and others vs. C.N. Sahasranaman and others - affirming the modifications submitted by the Bank, which were also put to referendum among the Class III employees.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - K Kannan - Full Document

Nemi Chand Sharma And Etc. Etc. vs Mehrishi Dayanand Saraswati ... on 24 October, 1997

17. Apart from the authorities already mentioned above and discussed and noticed by the Division Bench in Mahavir Prasad's case (supra), the learned counsel had challenged the provisions of ihe guidelines issued by the University as reproduced above by relying on Dr. Jagdish Sarm i v. U.O.I., (1980) 2 SCC 768 : AIR 1980 SC 820 State of Maharashtra v. Raj Kumar, AIR 1982 S 1301, Suneel Jatley v. State of Haryana, AIK 1984 SC 1534, Prakash Chandra Agarwal v. Slat, of Bihar, AIR 1985 SC 1709, Reserve Bank o' India v. C.N. Sahasranaman, AIR 1986 SC 1830 State of Rajasthan v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta AIR 1989 SC 177, Secretary, R.P.S.C., Ajmer \ Om Dull Sharma, (1990) I Rajasthan LR 182.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raja Ram vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 28 January, 2003

In Reserve Bank of India and Ors. v. C. N. Sahasranaman and Ors., AIR 1986 SC 1830, it was held by the Supreme Court that in service jurisprudence there cannot be any service rule which would satisfy each and every employee and its constitutionality has to be judged by considering whether it is fair, reasonable and does justice to the majority of the employees and fortunes of some individuals is not the touchstone.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Kesari Devi W/O Shri Gulab Singh, ... vs State Of U.P. Through Principal ... on 18 August, 2005

35. Similar view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Mohammad Bhakar v. Y. Krishna Reddy, 1970 SLR 768; Reserve Bank of India v. C.T. Dighe, ; State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni, ; Reserve Bank of India v. C.N. Sahasranaman, ; Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India and Ors., ; K. Jagadeesan v. Union of India, ; Union of India and Ors. v. N.Y. Apte and Ors., ; and Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P. .
Allahabad High Court Cites 164 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Chakardhari Sharan Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 6 November, 1990

15. On behalf of the respondents our attention was drawn to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India and Ors. v. C.N. Sahasranaman and Ors. . In that case provisions in the scheme for promotion of class III employees of the Reserve Bank contained in a Circular of the bank came up for consideration. That circular provided that for the purpose of promotion of class III employees in different Reserve Banks the seniority of the employees were to be considered centr-wise. An objection was raised against that circular that consideration should have been on All India basis. While upholding the circular it was said as follows:
Patna High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - N P Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next