Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.31 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Star Enterprises Etc. Etc vs City And Industrial Development ... on 30 April, 1990
15. The Supreme Court, through several decisions-M/s Star Enterprises &
Ors v City Industrial Development of Maharashtra Ltd 1990 (3) SCC 280
held that the executive government and authorities have to justify their
action in various fields through reasons.
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
3. All the writ petitioners were aggrieved by the discontinuance and
termination of their services. The claim for their regularization was rejected.
Learned Single Judge relied upon State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi
2006 (4) SCC 1. He, however, directed the release of benefits accruing to them
on the basis of the VI PC recommendations in the following terms:
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India vs Mohan Lal Capoor & Others on 26 September, 1973
Earlier, in Union Of India vs Mohan
Lal Capoor AIR 1974 SC 87 too, the necessity for giving reasons for an
executive order was emphasized. In the present case, no reasons are
forthcoming as to why the long established parity with regard to granting
revisions in pay, pursuant to Pay Commission recommendations, has not
been followed. Granted, the respondents could not insist on the application
of the "equal pay for equal work" principle. Yet their claim is not a first time
claim for parity; it is that having once admitted parity- at the inception and
indeed having been forced to concede parity whenever revisions took place
in the past, without any change in the circumstances, the respondents could
LPA 855/15, 56/16, 66/16, 68/16, 70/16, 74/16, 76/16 & 91/16 Page 16
not have validly refused the benefits of the VI PC recommendations. In this,
the Court finds considerable merit. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness, which
stares at one in the face, if it is realized that the Appellant/GNCTD has no
justification to deny the benefit of pay revision.
Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. vs Shri Ran Singh And Ors. [Along With Lpa ... on 18 February, 2008
The very same logic applies, with equal rigor in the present instance too.
The GNCTD's attempt to say that the doctors' job was not up to standard,
and that their employers were notified of lapses in the administration of the
system, relate to instances in 2012. However, it is a matter of fact that pay
revision was given effect to in respect of doctors with effect from
01.01.2006. Nor was any logic or rationale forthcoming, when as late as on
02.05.2006, the pay revision parity in respect of these very employees'
entitlements to the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations became final
LPA 855/15, 56/16, 66/16, 68/16, 70/16, 74/16, 76/16 & 91/16 Page 15
with the dismissal of the GNCTD's appeal to the Division Bench, in Mita
Chakraborti (supra).
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Workmen Virender Kumar & Ors. on 7 October, 2015
14. The writ petitioners' claim to revised pay scale at par with what was
granted earlier, whenever previous pay revisions took place due to Pay
Commission recommendations, stands established as an undisputed matter
of record. Each time this claim was made, the GNCTD and Central
Government refused to grant the relief; the Court equally repelled the
legality of such stand. In the circumstances, the claim of the
respondent/doctors is based on historical parity consistently upheld by this
Court. This claim is supported by decisions of this Court in Municipal
Corporation of Delhi vs Workmen Virender Kumar & Ors. (LPA 581/2010,
decided on 07.10.2015) and Dgof Employees Association v Union Of India
And Ors [W.P.(C) 4606/2013, decided on 14.10.2014].
Dgof Employees Association And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 14 October, 2014
14. The writ petitioners' claim to revised pay scale at par with what was
granted earlier, whenever previous pay revisions took place due to Pay
Commission recommendations, stands established as an undisputed matter
of record. Each time this claim was made, the GNCTD and Central
Government refused to grant the relief; the Court equally repelled the
legality of such stand. In the circumstances, the claim of the
respondent/doctors is based on historical parity consistently upheld by this
Court. This claim is supported by decisions of this Court in Municipal
Corporation of Delhi vs Workmen Virender Kumar & Ors. (LPA 581/2010,
decided on 07.10.2015) and Dgof Employees Association v Union Of India
And Ors [W.P.(C) 4606/2013, decided on 14.10.2014].
Dr. T.Renuka & Ors. vs Government Of National Capital ... on 27 November, 2013
7. Mr. Ghose, learned counsel also argued that the impugned judgment is in
error inasmuch that it did not properly appreciate the import of the learned
Single Judge's previous decision, in Dr. T. Renuka & Ors v Govt of NCT of
Delhi [W.P. (C) 9063/2011, decided on 27.11.2013), which had declined the
same relief to another doctor.
1