Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.49 seconds)
Jsn Malleshwar Rao vs D/O Post on 10 January, 2024 cites

State Of Mysore & Anr vs P. Narasing Rao on 31 August, 1967

In State of Mysore & Another v. Narasing Rao (cited supra) had categorically held that giving different scales classifying tracers in the state as Matriculate and non-Matriculate is valid and the said classification was upheld by the Supreme Court. In this case, members retired from the forces were classified as Commissioned Officers and Non- Commissioned Officers for the purpose of reemployment after retirement. The Page 23 of 26 OA No.20/1273/2015 & Batch object of giving re-employment is to protect these persons from difficulties on retirement. The classification is mainly made on the basis of qualifications, functions in their employment and the Non-Commissioned Officers are given reservation in Group C and D posts in Central Civil Services. The Commissioned Officers are officers coming under Group A category and there is no possibility of these officers to apply for a Group C and D posts and they are not given any reservations in the 1979 rules. So, these two categories stand apart. So, the classification is on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons grouped together. The object sought to be achieved is the welfare of the Ex-Servicemen who retire from forces before they attain the age of 55 years. The classification made under Rule 4 of the CCS (Fixation of Pay on Re- employment) Order, 1986 for the purpose of pay fixation is reasonable and cannot be considered as discriminatory to PBOR or Non-Commissioned Officers as alleged by the applicant. We cannot find any injustice manifest in the classification made in the rules. Article 16 of the Constitution provides for equality of opportunity. It is only an incident of the concept of equality under Article 14. The concept of equality cannot be confused with absolute equality. What is guaranteed is equality of opportunity and nothing more. Article 16(1) or (2) does not prohibit the prescription of reasonable rules for classification for selection or appointment. So, we are of the opinion that Rule 4(b)(i) of the CCS (Fixation of Pay on Re-employment) orders, 1986 does not offend Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution as alleged. No discrimination can be found against Non-Commissioned Officers.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 215 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

U.T. Chandigarh & Ors vs Gurcharan Singh & Anr on 1 November, 2013

In so far as the recovery, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.T. Chandigarh & Ors v. Gurcharan Singh & Anr (supra) also observed that if any amount has been paid due to mistake, the mistake must be rectified and the amount so paid in pursuance of the mistake must be recovered. In the instant case, the applicants were not at all entitled for the benefit of fixation of pay taking into account the last pay drawn by them in the defence forces at the time of their retirement and the said benefit was granted to the applicants on their representations. It is also evident from the Page 25 of 26 OA No.20/1273/2015 & Batch record that, the applicants gave specific undertaking at the time of revision of their pay and payment of arrears consequent to such revision of their pay. One such undertaking reads thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 37 - Full Document

Budhan Chaudhary vs The State Of Bihar on 22 April, 2022

The principle of fixation of pay for PBOR and Commissioned Officers stand the test laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Budhan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (cited supra). There may be differences in the total benefits received by these two categories. But this type of inequalities have to be mitigated by the executive government and such benefits cannot be granted by the Tribunals. All the applicants were re- employed after 1986 and the rules of fixation given in the rules does not suffer from any arbitrariness or discrimination which is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R K Verma - Full Document

Ut Of J&K vs Gurucharan Singh & Ors on 20 July, 2022

10. The respondents relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dt. 02.11.2013 in Civil Appeal No. 9873 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17881 of 2008 between Union Territory of Chandigarh & ors v. Gurucharan Singh & Anr and submitted that, in similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that pay protection cannot be given to the re- employed pensioners who held below the rank of Commissioned Officers posts in the Military Service and in so far as the recovery of excess paid pay Page 17 of 26 OA No.20/1273/2015 & Batch and allowances, the Apex Court held that if any amount has been paid due to mistake, the mistake must be rectified and the amount so paid can be recovered. Thus, the respondents prayed for vacating the interim order and for dismissal of the OA.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1