Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs R.Rajathurai cites

State Of U.P. & Ors vs U.P. Sales Tax Officers Gr.Ii Assn on 16 April, 2003

31. Sofar as the decision in the case of U.P.Sales Tax Officers Grade II Association (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court, while considering the scope of judicial review in such matters, pointed out that the decision of expert bodies, like the Pay Commission, is not ordinarily subject to judicial review obviously because pay fixation is an exercise, which requires analysis of various aspects of the posts held in various services and nature of duties of the employees. This portion of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court would be sufficient to non-suit the respondents / writ petitioners. On facts, in the said case, it was found that not only the pre- revised pay scales of both posts, which was the subject matter of litigation, were identical, but it was found that the nature of duties and functions were identical and the posts were equivalent. Therefore, the said decision does not render any assistance to the case of the respondents.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 77 - Full Document

Haryana State Minor Irrigation ... vs G. S. Uppal & Ors on 16 April, 2008

39. As pointed out by the Honourable Supreme Court, assessing nature of duties and responsibilities of two different posts for their equivalence is not an exercise that can be done under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The One Man Commission has examined the nature of duties and responsibilities and stated that the Block Health Statistician does not the same duty as the Pharmacist or Lab Technician. Admittedly, they possess a technical qualification, namely, Diploma in the specified Medical Technical field. Therefore, we cannot bring the case of the respondents into anyone of the exceptions carved out by the Honourable Supreme Court in G.S.Uppal (supra), as we find there is nothing to indicate that the decision of the appellants was either unreasonable, unjust or taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors. This leaves only one matter to be considered, namely, whether the decision can be interfered if it is prejudicial to a section of employees.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 86 - L S Panta - Full Document

State Of West Bengal & Anr vs West Bengal Minimum Wages ... on 15 March, 2010

In State of West Bengal and another vs. West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association and others, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 225, it has been held that the evaluation of duties and responsibilities of different posts and determination of the pay scales applicable to such posts and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities are complex executive functions, to be carried out by expert bodies. Explaining the functions of the Pay Commission, it was pointed out that it has two functions, namely, to revise the existing pay scale, by recommending revised pay scales corresponding to the pre-revised pay scales and secondly, to make recommendations for upgrading or downgrading posts resulting in higher pay scales or lower pay scales, depending upon the nature of duties and functions attached to those posts. It was further pointed out that the mere fact that at an earlier point of time, two posts were carrying the same pay scale does not mean that after the implementation of revision in pay scales, they should necessarily have the same revised pay scale.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 123 - Full Document

Dy. Dir. Gen. Of Geo. Survey Of India And ... vs R. Yadaiah And Ors. on 28 April, 2000

In Deputy Director General of Geological Survey of India and another vs. R.Yadaiah and others, reported in (2001) 10 SCC 563, it was held that ordinarily Court or Tribunal should not go into question of fitment of officers in a particular group or pay scale and leave those matters to the discretion and expertise of special commissions like Pay Commission and Court can interfere only on production of materials that there is some apparent error.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 14 - U C Banerjee - Full Document

Hukam Chand Gupta vs Director General, I.C.A.R. & Ors on 25 September, 2012

In Hukum Chand Gupta vs. Director General, ICAR and others, reported in 2012 (10) SCALE 479, it was held that it is for the employer to categorize the posts and to prescribe the duties of each post. There cannot be any strait jacket formula for holding that two posts having the same nomenclature would have to be given the same pay scale. It was further held that prescription of pay scales on particular posts is a very complex exercise which can be assessed by the expert bodies like employer or Pay Commission and Courts would not normally venture to substitute its own opinion for the opinions rendered by the experts, as it lacks necessary expertise.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 25 - H L Gokhale - Full Document
1