Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)
Rama Rani vs State Of Punjab And Others on 21 August, 2024 cites

State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K.V.L.Narasimha Rao & Ors on 19 April, 1999

12. Issue again came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. v. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao & Ors., 1999(2) S.C.T. 684 : (1999) 4 SCC 181.. In this case also the court held that back wages are normally to be allowed in case of retrospective promotion. However, in the said case, the Court denied the benefit to the employee noting down the peculiar facts of this case in the following terms:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 79 - Full Document

State Of Haryana & Ors. Etc vs O.P. Gupta Etc on 12 January, 1996

13. Another judgment which needs to be mentioned is in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. O.P. Gupta & Ors., (1996) 7 SCC 533.. The controversy involved in the said case was whether the employees were entitled to arrears of salary for the period for which they had admittedly not worked, but had been given notional promotion from the deemed date. The matter related to a seniority ority dispute where fresh seniority list was directed to be prepared in accordance with rules ignoring any inconsistent administrative instructions. The Supreme Court held that entitlement of the employees to work arose only when they were promoted in acco accordance with rules and the preparation of seniority list was a condition precedent for the exercise. The employees could not be posted in the promotional post till the exercise was carried out and thus, their plea that they were willing to work had no legal foundation. The Court, thus, did not give these employees benefit of arrears of salary for the period they had not worked.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 167 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

State Of Uttaranchal & Anr .... ... vs Dinesh Kumar Sharma ....Respond on 4 December, 2006

In Dinesh Kumar Sharma (supra) (supra), the Supreme Court was concerned with the issue for consideration as to 13 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2024 05:48:09 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:107606 14 CWP-4666 4666 of 2022 whether seniority should be given to incumbents from the date when promotional fell ell vacant or from the date of his substantive appointment to the said vacant post. The Court held that the seniority could not be given retrospectively from the date of occurrence of vacancy. This case, therefore, would not provide much assistance in deal dealing with the issue at hand.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 208 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

State Of Kerala & Ors vs E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai on 17 April, 2007

17.. The principle which can be deduced is that if a promotion omotion is denied to an employee because of the mistake of the administration and due to no fault of the said employee, then the authorities are bound to pay the arrears of salary etc. upon giving him the benefit of retrospective promotion after realising that mistake. This principle would be extended even to those cases where due to sheer negligence, carelessness or on account of malafides an employer denies the benefit of promotion to the employee at a proper time when it becomes due and gives him afterwards rds though retrospectively. (Also see State of Kerala and Others v. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, JT 2007 (6) SC 83; Mohd. Ahmed v. Nizam Sugar Factory and Others - (2004) 11 SCC 210; Nalini Kant Sinha v. State of Bihar and Others - 1993 Supp (4) SCC 748
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 241 - A K Mathur - Full Document

Nalini Kant Sinha vs State Of Bihar And Others on 22 October, 1992

17.. The principle which can be deduced is that if a promotion omotion is denied to an employee because of the mistake of the administration and due to no fault of the said employee, then the authorities are bound to pay the arrears of salary etc. upon giving him the benefit of retrospective promotion after realising that mistake. This principle would be extended even to those cases where due to sheer negligence, carelessness or on account of malafides an employer denies the benefit of promotion to the employee at a proper time when it becomes due and gives him afterwards rds though retrospectively. (Also see State of Kerala and Others v. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, JT 2007 (6) SC 83; Mohd. Ahmed v. Nizam Sugar Factory and Others - (2004) 11 SCC 210; Nalini Kant Sinha v. State of Bihar and Others - 1993 Supp (4) SCC 748
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 34 - Full Document

Satyavir Singh Shekhawat vs State Of Haryana And Others on 2 November, 2012

"9. We find that number of cases are decided by the Apex Court as well as various High Courts and in some 7 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2024 05:48:09 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:107606 8 CWP-4666 4666 of 2022 cases, relief of arrears of pay is granted, while in some other cases it is denied applying the doctrine of 'No work No pay'. Determination of the circ circumstances under which an employee should be given the arrears of pay and under what circumstances in which he can be denied this benefit is the task before us which we will endeavour to carry out relying upon the principles laid down in the decided cases.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1