Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.98 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Randhir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 February, 1982
"12. Parity of pay-scales cannot be given to the appellants even on the'principle
of equal pay for equal work. The appellants contend that some of the Ministerial
employees were assigned work in the Executive Police Force. Some persons in
the Ministerial (E) branch have been appointed to the Police Force as Deputy
Superintendent of Police also. The Ministerial (E) staff is also assigned duties of
Executive Police Force during elections. The Government maintains that the
members of the Ministerial (E) branch do not discharge executive functions. It is
well settled law that even if persons are holding same rank/designation and
having similar powers, duties and responsibilities they can be placed in
different scales of pay and cannot claim the benefit of the principle of equal pay
for equal work. [See: Randhir Singh v. Union of India, 1982 (1) SLJ 490 (SC) =
(1982) 1 SCC 618 and State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh Ors., (2017) 1 SCC 148.]
In this case the qualifications for appointment, mode of recruitment, training,
the duties and responsibilities not being similar, the appellant are not entitled
for the relief of equal pay."
State Of M.P.& Ors vs Ramesh Chandra Bajpai on 28 July, 2009
In State of MP v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai, (2009) 13 SCC
635 the Hon hie court has held that "equal pay for equal work" could be
invoked only when the employees are similarly situated. Designation of
quantum of work is not determinative.
Mewa Ram Kanojia vs All India Institute Of Medical Sciences ... on 9 March, 1989
(ix) The applicants would also highlight the ratio in Mewa Ram
Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences ATJ
1989 (1) SC 654 on the doctrine of "equal pay for equal
work" as a constitutional goal enjoining the State not to deny
equality in matters relating to employment or pay scales.
Union Of India & Anr vs S. Thakur on 17 October, 2008
Reliance has also been placed on Union of India v. V.S. Thakur,
(2008) 13 SCC 463, on K.T. Veerappa v> State of Karnataka, (2006)
9 SCC 40, on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai,
(2009) 13 SCC 635, and, on Uttar Pradesh Land Development
Corporation v. Mohd. Khursheed Anwar, (2010) 7 SCC 739, to
contend that judicial interference is warranted in administrative
decisions pertaining to pay parity if such decision is prejudicial to a
section of employees.
K. T. Veerappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 12 April, 2006
Reliance has also been placed on Union of India v. V.S. Thakur,
(2008) 13 SCC 463, on K.T. Veerappa v> State of Karnataka, (2006)
9 SCC 40, on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai,
(2009) 13 SCC 635, and, on Uttar Pradesh Land Development
Corporation v. Mohd. Khursheed Anwar, (2010) 7 SCC 739, to
contend that judicial interference is warranted in administrative
decisions pertaining to pay parity if such decision is prejudicial to a
section of employees.
Union Of India vs Tarit Ranjan Das on 8 October, 2003
It
has been further held in Inder Singh v. Vyas Muni Mishra, 1987
(Supp) SCC 257 that the principles will not apply when two group of
persons are not doing the same kind of work and hence equal pay cannot
be claimed, as held in Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, (2003) 11
SCC 658, merely because of same or similar designation in two separate
services.
U.P. Land Development Corporation & Anr vs Mohd. Khursheed Anwar & Anr on 5 July, 2010
Reliance has also been placed on Union of India v. V.S. Thakur,
(2008) 13 SCC 463, on K.T. Veerappa v> State of Karnataka, (2006)
9 SCC 40, on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai,
(2009) 13 SCC 635, and, on Uttar Pradesh Land Development
Corporation v. Mohd. Khursheed Anwar, (2010) 7 SCC 739, to
contend that judicial interference is warranted in administrative
decisions pertaining to pay parity if such decision is prejudicial to a
section of employees.