Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.31 seconds)

State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another vs Pramod Bhartiya And Others on 8 October, 1992

'9...............The nature of work may be more or less the same but scale of pay may vary based on academic qualification or experience which justifies classification. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' should not be applied in a mechanical or casual manner. Classification made by a body of experts after full study and analysis of the work should not be disturbed except for strong reasons which indicate the classification made to be unreasonable. Inequality of the men in different groups excludes applicability of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' to them. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has been examined in State of M.P. v. Pramod Bhartiya1 by this Court. Before any direction is issued by the Court, the claimants have to establish that there was no reasonable basis to treat them separately in matters of payment of wages or salary. Then only it can be held that there has been a discrimination, within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution.'
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 204 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Union Of India vs Ic 46298 N Lt Col. Mukul Dev on 7 January, 2015

8. Learned Central government counsel brought to our notice a recent judgment of the apex court in Union of India v. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao - (2015) 3 SCC 653 wherein it was held that the difference in the pay scales based on educational qualifications, nature of job, responsibilities, accountability, experience and manner of recruitment does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. It was held by the apex court :
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1