Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India & Anr vs P.K. Roy & Ors on 9 November, 1967
Before concluding, we are constrained to observe that the role played by
the respondents in this litigation is far from satisfactory. In bur
opinion, after laying down appropriate rules governing the service
conditions of its employees, a State should only play the role of an
impartial employer in the inter-se dispute between its employees. If any
such dispute arises, the State should apply the rules laid down by it
fairly. Still if the matter is dragged to a judicial forum, the State
should confine its role to that of an amicus curiae by assisting the
judicial forum to a correct decision. Once a decision is rendered by a
judicial forum, thereafter the State should not further involve itself in
litigation. The matter thereafter should be left to the parties concerned
to agitate further, if they so desire. When a State, after the judicial
forum delivers a judgment, files review petition, appeal etc. it gives an
impression that it is espousing the cause of a particular group of
employees against another group of its own employees, unless of course
there are compelling reasons to resort to such further proceedings. In the
instant case, we feel the respondent has taken more than necessary interest
which is uncalled for. This act of the State has only resulted in waste of
time and money of all concerned.
Vice-Chancellor, L.N. Mithila ... vs Dayanand Jha on 25 April, 1986
We are further
supported in this view of ours by another judgment of this Court :in the
case of Vice-Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University v. Dayanand Jha. [1986] 3
SCC 7 Wherein at para 8 of the judgment, this Court held: "Learned counsel
for the respondent is therefore right in contending that equivalency of the
pay scale is not the Only factor in judging whether the post of Principal
and that of Reader are equivalent posts. We are inclined to agree with him
that the real criterion to adopt is whether they could be regarded of equal
status and responsibility xxx The true criterion for equivalence is the
status and the nature and responsibility of the duties attached to the two
posts, xxx"
K. Anjaiah Etc vs K. Chandraiah & Ors. Etc on 3 March, 1993
However, in that case this Court instead of striking down the said
regulation, upholding the contention that a deputationist is entitled to
count his seniority when absorbed in the deputed post, observed thus:
R.S. Makashi & Ors vs I.M. Menon & Ors on 8 December, 1981
In the case of R.S. Mokashi v. I.M. Menon this
Court had indicated that it is a just and wholesome principle commonly
applied to persons coming from different sources and drafted to serve a new
service to count their pre-existing length of service for determining their
ranking in the new service cadre.
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 9 in The States Reorganisation Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas Thakur vs Ratilal Motilal Patel on 5 September, 1967
This Court in the case of Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas Thakar
v. Ratilal Motilal Patel, [1968] 1 SCR 455 while dealing with a case in
which a Judge of the High Court had failed to follow the earlier judgment
of a larger Bench of the same court observed thus: