Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.18 seconds)
S.C. Saxena And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 January, 2003 cites

Union Of India & Ors vs P. Jagdish And Others on 17 December, 1996

"9. The learned Counsel suggests that the Bench has failed to take note of an earlier judgment of a Bench of two Judges in Union of India v. P. Jagdish. Subsequent to the promotion of the respondents in that case as Head Clerks from the posts of Senior Clerks, some of the posts of Senior Clerks were given a special pay of Rs. 35 per month. Though the respondents had not worked on such posts, they claimed relaxation of their pay in the cadre of Head Clerks on a notional basis that they were drawing such special. That claim was negatived by the Bench. But the Bench held that the respondents therein were entitled to have their pay stepped up to he on a par with that of their juniors who had worked in posts carrying such special pay and were promoted later than the respondents as Head Clerks. The Bench look care to say that such stepping up would be only prospective from the date of promotions of the juniors. The facts of the present case are entirely different and the said ruling will not apply."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 83 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs R. Swaminathan on 12 September, 1997

In the case of R. Swaminathan (supra) which has been referred to in that case the Apex Court took note of the ad hoc promotion which ensued because of ad hoc local promotion against certain vacancies. Their Lordships opined the local officiating arrangement, docs not adversely affect seniority of regular promotion of senior employee on the basis of All India seniority. Their Lordships referred to Fundamental Rule 22 and thereafter in Paragraphs 7 and 8 held that for the fixation of pay on promotion, one has to first look at the pay being drawn by the promotee in the lower post. This pay in the lower post must be increased by one increment in that pay scale. Thereafter Their Lordships in Paragraph 8 held as under :--
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 79 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs M. Suryanarayana Rao on 7 August, 1998

In our opinion the said case relates to conferral of benefit on a junior on the basis of promotion and hence, the Apex Court in that case while relying in the case of Suryanarayana Rao (supra) distinguished the law laid down in the case of P. Jagdish and others (supra). We also perceive that the facts in the case of Jagdish and others are absolutely the same as in the case at hand. In the said case the respondent, P. Jagdish was not working against identified post carrying special pay in cadre of Senior Clerks but his juniors were carrying special pay were promoted later but their pay was fixed at a higher slab taking into account the special pay which was received by them in the lower post. In that context while denying the grant of special pay in Paragraph 7 Their Lordships held as under:--
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 52 - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs O.P. Saxena, ... on 5 August, 1997

In the case of O.P. Saxena (supra) a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court dealt with the case of special pay that related to staff category of staff called 'running staff which is involved in the running trains. It was the case that the locomotive drivers were eligible for promotion amongst other posts, to those of Loco Supervisors. One Shri Kareer and O.P. Saxena, at one time, were holding the running post of Driver Grade C. Kareer was promoted on the said post on 29-8-1961 and the O.P. Saxena had been promoted and appointed as Drivers Grade C from a date subsequent to 29-8-1961. Kareer was senior to O.P. Saxena, Thereafter O.P. Saxena opted to be promoted to the 'stationary post' of Loco Supervisor directly from the post of Driver Grade C which they were holding. Their promotion was made prior to 1st January, 1986. Sh. Kareer chose to remain in the running staff and thereafter he was promoted as Driver Grade-A. The pay of running staff on promotion to Loco Supervisor's post is fixed under Rule 1316 of Indian Railway Establishment Code after fixation of an additional component of thirty per cent of basic pay last drawn in the running cadre, which represents the pay element in the running allowance. O.P. Saxena was stepped up but later on when it was realised recoveries were directed to be made and the action was assailed before the Tribunal which lanceted the order passed by the Department. Thereafter the Union of India came before the Apex Court. Their Lordships referred to Rule 1316 of Indian Railway Establishment Code. In Paragraph 12 the Apex Court held as under :--
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 64 - Full Document
1