Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.26 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 February, 1990
In the case of HARYANA STATE ADHYAPAK SANGH v. STATE OF HARYANA, , a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court clarifying the judgment in HARYANA STATE ADHYAPAK SANGH v. STATE OF HARYANA (supra) issued a direction, inter alia, that the parity in the pay scales and dearness allowance of teachers employed in aided schools and those employed in government schools shall be maintained and with that end in future the pay scales of teachers employed in government schools shall be revised and brought on a par with the aided schools and dearness allowance payable to the teachers employed in government schools with effect from 1.1.1986.
Dr. Km. Suman Agarwal vs The Vice-Chancellor & Ors on 29 November, 1995
was considered. The apex court upon considerations of the various provisions of the statutes made by the Aligarh Muslim University and referring to its earlier decisions in RASHMT SRIVASTAVA v. VIKRAM UNIVERSITY, , as also SUMAN AGARWAL v. VICE-CHANCELLOR, BAL KRISHNA AGARWAL v. STATE OF U.P., , held that professors of Aligarh Muslim University are entitled to seniority above the directly recruited candidates in the light of the regulation for determining inter se seniority framed by the executive council. They were also held to be entitled to the consequential benefits.
State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr vs M.R. Alagappan & Ors on 8 April, 1997
In STATE OF TAMILNADU v. M.R. ALGAPPAN (supra), the apex court held that when there are distinguishing features like educational qualification for appointment, mode of recruitment, special assignments entrusted to one category only, and provisions for different seniority lists the doctrine of equal pay for equal work may not be applied. The said decision has no application in the present case. In that case the apex court was considering the cases of Deputy Mining Officers vis-a-vis the local officers who are found not forming an identical class of employees insisting grant of same scale of pay as not to offend Articles 14 and 16. Such is not the position here.
T. Sham Bhat vs Union Of India And Anr on 29 July, 1994
In SHAM v. UNION OF INDIA, , different pay scales were recommended by the Third Pay Commission itself having regard to the qualification and experience for the posts of pharmacists. The Act itself classified pharmacists into two different categories on the basis of qualification and experience and on that premise it was held that there being a reasonable basis for difference in pay scale, principle of equal pay for equal work was not attracted.
Prof.S.A. Siddiqui vs Prof.M.Wajid Khan & Ors on 11 January, 1999
In S.A. SIDDIQUI v. M. WAJID KHAN, , the objective of the merit promotion scheme which was as follows:
Dr. Rashmi Srivastava vs Vikram University & Ors on 20 April, 1995
was considered. The apex court upon considerations of the various provisions of the statutes made by the Aligarh Muslim University and referring to its earlier decisions in RASHMT SRIVASTAVA v. VIKRAM UNIVERSITY, , as also SUMAN AGARWAL v. VICE-CHANCELLOR, BAL KRISHNA AGARWAL v. STATE OF U.P., , held that professors of Aligarh Muslim University are entitled to seniority above the directly recruited candidates in the light of the regulation for determining inter se seniority framed by the executive council. They were also held to be entitled to the consequential benefits.
Dr. Bal Krishna Agarwal vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 10 January, 1995
was considered. The apex court upon considerations of the various provisions of the statutes made by the Aligarh Muslim University and referring to its earlier decisions in RASHMT SRIVASTAVA v. VIKRAM UNIVERSITY, , as also SUMAN AGARWAL v. VICE-CHANCELLOR, BAL KRISHNA AGARWAL v. STATE OF U.P., , held that professors of Aligarh Muslim University are entitled to seniority above the directly recruited candidates in the light of the regulation for determining inter se seniority framed by the executive council. They were also held to be entitled to the consequential benefits.
Kamlakar & Others vs Union Of India & Others on 14 May, 1999
In KAMLAKAR v. UNION OF INDIA, as a sequence to its earlier decision in CHANDRAPRAKASH MADHAVRAO DADWA v. UNION OF INDIA, , the apex court held: