Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (2.73 seconds)
Documents citing Dr. Chandra Shekhar Sahukar vs Union Of India on 14 October, 2014

Pankaj Kumar Lakhanpal & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 2 March, 2023

this action of the respondent-State was challenged by the Medical Officers (Dental) in O.A. No. 5053/2015, titled as Dr. Bhim Chand and ors. vs. State of H.P. & ors., decided on 23.12.2016, wherein the learned erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal held the petitioners therein to be similarly situated with the Medical Officers, who had been granted 4-tier pay scale after taking into consideration the services rendered by them on contract or ad-hoc basis and the respondent-State, in its wisdom, did not assail the aforesaid judgment and rather chose to implement the same. This issue is otherwise no longer res integra and covered by the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Dr. Chandra Shekhar Sahukar's case, more particularly, by the observations and findings recorded in para 27 thereof (supra).
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Pankaj Kumar Lakhanpal & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 2 March, 2023

this action of the respondent-State was challenged by the Medical Officers (Dental) in O.A. No. 5053/2015, titled as Dr. Bhim Chand and ors. vs. State of H.P. & ors., decided on 23.12.2016, wherein the learned erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal held the petitioners therein to be similarly situated with the Medical Officers, who had been granted 4-tier pay scale after taking into consideration the services rendered by them on contract or ad-hoc basis and the respondent-State, in its wisdom, did not assail the aforesaid judgment and rather chose to implement the same. This issue is otherwise no longer res integra and covered by the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Dr. Chandra Shekhar Sahukar's case, more particularly, by the observations and findings recorded in para 27 thereof (supra).
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pankaj Kumar Lakhanpal & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 2 March, 2023

this action of the respondent-State was challenged by the Medical Officers (Dental) in O.A. No. 5053/2015, titled as Dr. Bhim Chand and ors. vs. State of H.P. & ors., decided on 23.12.2016, wherein the learned erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal held the petitioners therein to be similarly situated with the Medical Officers, who had been granted 4-tier pay scale after taking into consideration the services rendered by them on contract or ad-hoc basis and the respondent-State, in its wisdom, did not assail the aforesaid judgment and rather chose to implement the same. This issue is otherwise no longer res integra and covered by the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Dr. Chandra Shekhar Sahukar's case, more particularly, by the observations and findings recorded in para 27 thereof (supra).
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pankaj Kumar Lakhanpal & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 2 March, 2023

this action of the respondent-State was challenged by the Medical Officers (Dental) in O.A. No. 5053/2015, titled as Dr. Bhim Chand and ors. vs. State of H.P. & ors., decided on 23.12.2016, wherein the learned erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal held the petitioners therein to be similarly situated with the Medical Officers, who had been granted 4-tier pay scale after taking into consideration the services rendered by them on contract or ad-hoc basis and the respondent-State, in its wisdom, did not assail the aforesaid judgment and rather chose to implement the same. This issue is otherwise no longer res integra and covered by the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Dr. Chandra Shekhar Sahukar's case, more particularly, by the observations and findings recorded in para 27 thereof (supra).
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pankaj Kumar Lakhanpal & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 2 March, 2023

this action of the respondent-State was challenged by the Medical Officers (Dental) in O.A. No. 5053/2015, titled as Dr. Bhim Chand and ors. vs. State of H.P. & ors., decided on 23.12.2016, wherein the learned erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal held the petitioners therein to be similarly situated with the Medical Officers, who had been granted 4-tier pay scale after taking into consideration the services rendered by them on contract or ad-hoc basis and the respondent-State, in its wisdom, did not assail the aforesaid judgment and rather chose to implement the same. This issue is otherwise no longer res integra and covered by the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Dr. Chandra Shekhar Sahukar's case, more particularly, by the observations and findings recorded in para 27 thereof (supra).
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pankaj Kumar Lakhanpal & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 2 March, 2023

this action of the respondent-State was challenged by the Medical Officers (Dental) in O.A. No. 5053/2015, titled as Dr. Bhim Chand and ors. vs. State of H.P. & ors., decided on 23.12.2016, wherein the learned erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal held the petitioners therein to be similarly situated with the Medical Officers, who had been granted 4-tier pay scale after taking into consideration the services rendered by them on contract or ad-hoc basis and the respondent-State, in its wisdom, did not assail the aforesaid judgment and rather chose to implement the same. This issue is otherwise no longer res integra and covered by the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Dr. Chandra Shekhar Sahukar's case, more particularly, by the observations and findings recorded in para 27 thereof (supra).
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pankaj Kumar Lakhanpal & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 2 March, 2023

this action of the respondent-State was challenged by the Medical Officers (Dental) in O.A. No. 5053/2015, titled as Dr. Bhim Chand and ors. vs. State of H.P. & ors., decided on 23.12.2016, wherein the learned erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal held the petitioners therein to be similarly situated with the Medical Officers, who had been granted 4-tier pay scale after taking into consideration the services rendered by them on contract or ad-hoc basis and the respondent-State, in its wisdom, did not assail the aforesaid judgment and rather chose to implement the same. This issue is otherwise no longer res integra and covered by the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Dr. Chandra Shekhar Sahukar's case, more particularly, by the observations and findings recorded in para 27 thereof (supra).
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Vishnu Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 January, 2026

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that Dental Surgeons and Medical Officers were extended benefit of time scale of pay on completion of 5 years, 10 years, 15 years and 30 years of service but in case of petitioners, who are Veterinary Assistant Surgeons benefit of time scale of pay is provided to them on completion of 8 years of service. It is submitted that there is discriminatory treatment of petitioners from Dental Surgeons/Health Officers. There is no rational in not providing similar benefits to petitioners on par with Dental Surgeon/Medical Officer. Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon judgment passed by High Court at Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR DUBEY Signing time: 1/13/2026 4:04:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1343 2 WP-23100-2024 Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 2780/2011 in case of Dr. Chandra Shekhar Sahukar Vs. Union of India dated 14.10.2014. It is submitted that in the said case it was held that there is no reason to say that veterinarians are different from other class of medical and dental practitioners for denying benefit of Dynamic Assured Career Progression Mechanism on par with GDMOs and Dental Doctors. Petitioners/Veterinarians therein were given benefit from the same date when same was extended to GDMOs and Dental doctors.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V Dhagat - Full Document

Dr. Vishnu Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 December, 2025

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue raised in the petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in W.P. (C)No.2780/2011 (Dr. Chandra Shekhar Sahukar vs. Union of India) decided on 14.10.2014. The said decision has not been interfered by the Apex Court as the SLP preferred against the same, was dismissed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - M S Bhatti - Full Document
1