Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.40 seconds)State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Shri P.D. Attri And Others on 11 February, 1999
In view of the exposition of law in P.D. Attri's case (supra), it has to be
seen as to whether the petitioner has been able to establish violation of any
constitutional or any other legal provision when he has laid claim based
upon parity with the posts with similarly situate persons in the State of
Punjab and claiming pay scales granted in the said State.
Union Of India & Ors vs Dineshan K.K on 4 January, 2008
8.The petitioner nowhere in the petition has made even whisper regarding
the nature of the work done by him so as to compare it with his
counterparts in State of Punjab. Further, he has not even mentioned the
educational qualifications, the working conditions and other relevant
factors so as to make it possible for this Court to come to a conclusion with
regard to similarity in the nature of work performed by the petitioner vis-a-
vis his counterparts in the adjoining State of Punjab. The petitioner has
simply relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of
India versus Dineshan K.K. (2008) 1 SCC 586, State of Kerala versus
B.Renjith Kumar and others (2008) 12 SCC 219 and Hukam Chand
Gupta versus Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research
and others(2012) 12 SCC 666.
State Of Kerala vs B. Renjit Kumar & Ors on 5 June, 2008
8.The petitioner nowhere in the petition has made even whisper regarding
the nature of the work done by him so as to compare it with his
counterparts in State of Punjab. Further, he has not even mentioned the
educational qualifications, the working conditions and other relevant
factors so as to make it possible for this Court to come to a conclusion with
regard to similarity in the nature of work performed by the petitioner vis-a-
vis his counterparts in the adjoining State of Punjab. The petitioner has
simply relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of
India versus Dineshan K.K. (2008) 1 SCC 586, State of Kerala versus
B.Renjith Kumar and others (2008) 12 SCC 219 and Hukam Chand
Gupta versus Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research
and others(2012) 12 SCC 666.
Secretary Mahatama Gandhi Mission & Arn vs Bhartiya Kamgar Sena And Ors on 5 January, 2017
In (2017) 4 SCC 449 titled Secretary Mahatama Gandhi
Mission and another vs. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena and others in following
paras, it was held that even the recommendations of pay commission are not
binding on the Government of India. They are meant for administrative
guidance. The Government of India may reject or accept the recommendations
::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2020 20:19:15 :::HCHP
12
either fully or partly. Even if Government of India accepts that
recommendations of Pay Commission, then also it has no authority to compel
.
Union Of India vs M.V. Mohanan Nair on 5 March, 2020
In Civil Appeal No.2016/2020, titled Union of India and
others Vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair, decided on 5.03.2020, Hon'ble Apex Court
held that Court should not interfere with the recommendations of the expert
body. When the Government has accepted the recommendation of the Pay
Commission and has also implemented those, any interference by the Court
would have a serious impact on the public exchequer. It was observed that it
is the function of the Government which normally acts on the
recommendations of the Pay Commission, which is the proper authority to
::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2020 20:19:15 :::HCHP
13
decide upon the issues and decision of experts bodies like the Pay
Commission is not ordinarily subject to judicial review.
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. vs Rajesh Kumar Jindal on 8 January, 2019
It will be apposite to refer following paras from Punjab State
Power Corporation Limited case (supra) wherein it was held that various
factors determine the issue of equivalence & equation of posts. Burden of
proof in establishing parity in pay scales & nature of duties & responsibilities
is on the person claiming such right. The conclusion arrived at by experts are
not susceptible to judicial review.
State Of M.P.& Ors vs Ramesh Chandra Bajpai on 28 July, 2009
Hiranmoy Sen and Others, 2008 1 SCC 630, Official Liquidator v.
Dayanand and Others, 2008 10 SCC 1, U.P. SEB and Another v. Aziz
Ahmad, 2009 2 SCC 606 and State of M.P. and Others v. Ramesh
Chandra Bajpai, 2009 13 SCC 635).
Punjab State Electricity Board And Anr. vs Thana Singh And Ors. on 8 January, 2019
In (2019) 4 SCC 113 titled Punjab State Electricity Board and
another Vs. Thana Singh and others, it was held that it would be for the
.
State Of Haryana And Anr vs Tilak Raj And Ors on 14 July, 2003
In State of Haryana
and Another v. Tilak Raj and Others, 2003 6 SCC 123, this Court held that: