Sri Amiya Saha (Majhi) & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 25 April, 2014
05. Crl. Misc. No. M-4011 of 2012 (O&M) dated 20.08.2013 Dharam
Pal & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.88 seconds)Engineer Dharampal Sandhu vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. ... on 30 April, 2019
"Learned counsel for the State does not dispute
that all Masters and Mistresses, whether they joined
service with Post-Graduate qualifications before
1.1.1978 or acquired the Post-Graduate qualifications
before that date, and all the Masters & Mistresses who
joined service with Post-Graduate qualifications or
acquired the same after 1.1.1978, but before
19.2.1979, belong to one class of Masters & Mistresses
with common seniority and cadre and are performing
the same duties. The resultant effect is that the Masters
and Mistresses working on the same very post, having
the same very qualification and performing the same
2 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2019 23:56:32 :::
CWP-22484-2014 (O&M) -3-
functions, are getting different pay. This Court had an
occasion to deal with some-what similar matter in
Dharam Pal and others v. State of Punjab and others
1994(2) SCT 336 (P&H) Civil Writ Petition No. 10506
of 1989, decided on 15.12.1993 wherein the instructors
working in various Institutes in the State of Punjab,
though were imparting training in various trades, but
instructors imparting training in some trades were
getting higher pay compared to the others who were
imparting training in other trades. Resultantly, some of
the instructors junior to the petitioners therein started
getting more pay and in these circumstances, it was
held that "the grievance of the petitioners is legitimate.
The disparity cannot be allowed to be continued for the
reason that the qualifications for appointment to all
the posts of Instructors are the same and they are
governed by same service conditions and there is a
joint seniority list of all the Instructors. Further, their
seniority is depending on the date of appointment
irrespective of the pay drawn. In this view of the
matter, senior persons are certainly entitled to all
those benefits which their juniors in the same cadre
are getting i.e. the pay of a senior cannot be less than
that of a junior." In this case too, the persons who
joined service with Post Graduate qualifications or
acquired these qualifications after 1.1.1978, have
started getting more pay compared to those who joined
service with Post Graduate qualifications on or before
1.1.1978 or acquired the said qualifications before
1.1.1978. Respondents have not pointed out any reason
for creating and not removing the anomaly in question,
except the ground that the petitioners have been
granted two or three increments, as the case may be, in
the unrevised pay scale and cannot be given the same
benefit for the second time. This stand of the State has
3 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2019 23:56:33 :::
CWP-22484-2014 (O&M) -4-
resulted in an anomalous situation, i.e. juniors have
started getting more pay compared to their seniors,
which is wholly unjust, unfair and inequitable. Fixing
of pay of the juniors in a higher scale than that of
seniors, is clearly discriminatory and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and the action
of the State in depriving the petitioners of their
justifiable right cannot be sustained. Petitioners, thus,
are entitled to be brought at par with that of their
juniors."
Vikram Kumar @ Ashu & Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 30 August, 2017
It is submitted that the abovesaid FIR primarily arises from a
matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.3 and her husband i.e., son of
respondent No.2 (father-in-law of petitioner No.3). With the intervention of
respectables and relatives, a compromise was arrived at between the parties, the
terms of which were reduced into writing on 09.03.2016 (Annexure P2). The
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 09-09-2017 08:25:11 :::
CRM No.M-18679 of 2016 [2]
matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.3 and her husband has also been
resolved. Their petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has
since been allowed on 18.08.2017. FIR No.142 dated 02.12.2015 under Sections
406/498A/506/120B IPC, Police Station Amloh lodged at the behest of petitioner
No.3 has been quashed by this Court vide order dated 30.08.2017 passed
separately in CRM No.M-9381 of 2016 (Dharam Pal and others v. State of
Punjab and others) on the basis of compromise between the parties. FIR in the
present case was registered at the instance of respondent No.2 i.e., father-in-law
of petitioner No.3.
Neelam Suri vs Union Territory on 24 May, 2017
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants, having gone through the record with his valuable assistance, and without expressing any opinion on merits, the main Original Application (OA) is disposed of with the direction, to The Director, Technical Education, U.T. Chandigarh (Respondent no.3) to decide the indicated representations, by passing a speaking order, in view of ratio of law laid down in Dharam Pals case (supra), and in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
1