Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.21 seconds)U.T.Administration,Chandigarh & Ors vs Manju Mathur & Anr on 14 January, 2011
Likewise, if the central nature of duties of one post is of quality control,
whereas the subject post has minimal duties of quality control, the
principle would not be applicable (see - Union Territory Administration,
Chandigarh v. Manju Mathur15).
State Of Punjab And Ors vs Jagjit Singh And Ors on 26 October, 2016
10. The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh
(supra) is whether temporary employees (daily wage employees, ad
hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual
employees and likewise) are entitled to the minimum of the regular
pay scales on account of their performing the same duties which
are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against the
sanctioned posts.
Union Of India And Others vs Pradip Kumar Dey on 9 November, 2000
(ix) The reference post, with which parity is claimed, under the principle
of 'equal pay for equal work', has to be at the same hierarchy in the
service, as the subject post. Pay-scales of posts may be different, if the
hierarchy of the posts in question, and their channels of promotion, are
different. Even if the duties and responsibilities are same, parity would not
be permissible, as against a superior post, such as a promotional post (see -
Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dey7, and the Hukum Chand
Gupta case17).
The Official Liquidator Of M/S Kaizen ... vs Dayanand Madhav Mapuskar And Anr ... on 20 December, 2018
(x) A comparison between the subject post and the reference post, under
the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', cannot be made, where the
subject post and the reference post are in different establishments, having
a different management. Or even, where the establishments are in different
geographical locations, though owned by the same master (see - the
Harbans Lal case23). Persons engaged differently, and being paid out of
different funds, would not be entitled to pay parity (see - Official
Liquidator v. Dayanand13).
State Of Haryana vs Haryana Food And Supplies Field Staff ... on 14 March, 2016
(xii) The priority given to different types of posts, under the prevailing
policies of the Government, can also be a relevant factor for placing
different posts under different pay-scales. Herein also, the principle of
'equal pay for equal work' would not be applicable (see - State of Haryana
v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association9).
State Of West Bengal & Anr vs West Bengal Minimum Wages ... on 15 March, 2010
(xiii) The parity in pay, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work',
cannot be claimed, merely on the ground, that at an earlier point of time,
the subject post and the reference post, were placed in the same pay- scale.
The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is applicable only when it is
shown, that the incumbents of the subject post and the reference post,
discharge similar duties and responsibilities (see - State of West Bengal v.
West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association14).
Sabha Shanker Dube vs Divisional Forest Officer on 14 November, 2018
8, 9, 10 & 11 of
Sabha Shanker Dube (Supra) are extracted hereunder:-
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
"5. This Court has also on occasions issued directions which could not be
said to be consistent with the Constitutional scheme of public
12
employment. Such directions are issued presumably on the basis of
equitable considerations or individualization of justice. The question
arises, equity to whom? Equity for the handful of people who have
approached the Court with a claim, or equity for the teeming millions of
this country seeking employment and seeking a fair opportunity for
competing for employment? When one side of the coin is considered, the
other side of the coin, has also to be considered and the way open to any
court of law or justice, is to adhere to the law as laid down by the
Constitution and not to make directions, which at times, even if do not run
counter to the Constitutional scheme, certainly tend to water down the
Constitutional requirements. It is this conflict that is reflected in these
cases referred to the Constitution Bench."
State Of U.P. And Ors. vs Putti Lal on 21 February, 2002
17. Lastly, an identical principle was widely considered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in 2006 (9) SCC
337, State of U.P. and others Vs. Putti Lal, which too in its para
5, has dealt with an issue as to what would be the scope of
entitlement of daily wagers to be paid with the salary admissible
to the post on which the service has been discharged by an
employee. Para 5 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:-