Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.85 seconds)

Excel Wear Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 September, 1978

“27. It is now well settled that fixing cut off dates is within the domain of the Executive and that the court should normally refrain from interfering Page 23 of 30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.15269 and 16906 of 2020 with the fixation of cut off date. Without multiplying the authorities, an useful reference can be made to the judgment of K.Chandru J., in R. Vijayakumar Vs. Government of India (CDJ 2013 MHC 1140), where the learned Judge traced the development of law from the decision of the Supreme court in Excel Wear Vs. Union of India (1978 (4) SCC 224), upto the decision in Transport and Dock workers Union Vs. Mumbai port Trust (2011 (2) SCC 575). As pointed out by the learned judge, the court is obliged to exercise restraint in such matters. As a matter of fact, this litigation under the ONE Unit System actually started 23 years ago in 1990. It has become a continuous process with one section of employees or the other getting affected by the implementation of the benefits of rectification of pay anomaly in favour of one set of employees. This cannot continue for every and at one stage, the chain in the link has to be severed.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 62 - Cited by 98 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

Maharashtra Ekta Hawkwers Union & Anr vs Municipal Corporation,Greater ... on 9 September, 2013

23. The order passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26009 of 2011 referred to above was confirmed by learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1020 of 2014 dated 19.08.2014 and the same was also confirmed in SLP (C) No.32262 of 2014 by an order dated 17.11.2017. Considering the Page 24 of 30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.15269 and 16906 of 2020 facts of the case on hand also, initially the benefit of pay/ post parity was claimed and was granted in favour of the Assistant Promotee Assistant Section Officers and while issuing the said order, it was mentioned that the similar benefit to the Typist promotee Assistant Section Officers would be considered separately and while issuing such separate orders, in respect of Typist promotee Assistant Section Officers, once again a clause was inserted saying that consequential rectification orders in respect of the Assistant promotee Assistant Section Officers would be issued separately. If this rotation is to be allowed, there would be no end for the same. One after the other, Government will be forced to step-up/ upgrade the pay post of one cadre after the other.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 92 - G S Singhvi - Full Document
1