Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (1.77 seconds)

Union Of India And Anr vs R. Sarangapani And Ors. Etc. Etc on 15 March, 2000

In Union of India v. R. Sarangapani, , Government of India issued Office Memorandum dated 22.10.1990 sanctioning increment to technicians, who underwent training and completed training on or after 1.1.1986 and the same benefit was denied to those technicians, who completed the training before 1.1.1986. When memorandum was challenged before Central Administrative Tribunal of Bangalore Bench, it was held that technicians appointed prior to 1.1.1986 would also be entitled to the benefit of Office* Memorandum dated 22.10.1990. Following the same, in another application, Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench allowed the applications, against which Civil Appeals were filed with special leave. Madras Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal took opposite view, by reason of which the matter was referred to Full Bench of Madras Bench, which overruled the earlier view of the Bangalore Bench and upheld the view of the Madras Bench. Be that as it is, before the Supreme Court it was contended that 1.1.1986 is the date co-terminus with the commencement of recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission and that the increment is payable on 1.1.1986 only to those technicians, who are appointed on that date and not prior to that date. Repelling the ground of discrimination raised by the respondent employees, the Supreme Court ruled as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

State Of Punjab & Anr vs J.L.Gupta & Ors on 16 February, 2000

In State of Punjab v. J.L. Gupta, (2000) 3 SCC 736, the respondents had retired on 31.3.1985 and their pensionary benefits were calculated as per the Rules in force at the time of their retirement. On 9.7.1985, Government of Punjab issued a notification ordering that the dearness allowance and ad hoc dearness allowance sanctioned upto Consumer Price Level Index No. 568 will be treated as dearness pay for the purpose of calculating pension and gratuity in respect of employees retired on or after 31.3.1985. The respondents were not given the benefit. They filed the writ petition in Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition directing the State of Punjab to pay all the dues.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 68 - Full Document
1