Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 45 (1.61 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 July, 2000
XVI) Nevertheless, respondents submit that the dismissal of the SLP
and the review petition on merits, filed against the judgment of the Hon‟ble
High Court of Madras in P.Ayyamperumal case does not mean that the issue
has attained finality, since the P.Ayyamperumal judgment can be reviewed by
the Hon‟ble Madras High Court, if challenged, as laid by the Hon‟ble Apex
Court in Kunhayammed v State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359. As seen from
the records on file, there is no such review and hence, as on date the Judgment
of the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras holds good.
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas Thakur vs Ratilal Motilal Patel on 5 September, 1967
This Court in the case of Tribhovandas Purshottamdas Thakkar v.
Ratilal Motilal Patel 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:
Principal Accountant General And Anr. vs C. Subba Rao on 27 January, 2005
It requires no reiteration that the later judgment of Hon‟ble High Court of
Delhi on 13.1.2020 on the same issue holds the ground. It must be noted that
the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi has rejected the contention that
P.Ayyamperumal Judgment is in personam on which the respondents harped
by stating that the nodal Ministry i.e DOPT has taken such a stand. Moreover,
the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of A.P. in Principal Accountant
General, AP & others v C. Subba Rao & others in 2005(2) ALD = 2005 (2)
ALT 25 cited by the respondents to back their defence would not be relevant
in view of the latest Judgment of the Hon Delhi court on 23.1.2020 referred to
above and the dismissal of both the SLP (C) No.22008/2018 plus the Review
Petition vide RP (C) No.1731/2019 filed thereupon against Ayyamperumal
judgment in WP No.15732/2017 dt. 15.9.2017, by the Hon‟ble Apex Court on
35 OA No.020/328/2020
23.7.2018 and 8.8.2019 respectively, for reasons expounded in para XVI. It is
also pertinent to point out that when the C. Subba Rao judgment was delivered
in 2005 by the Hon‟ble High Court of A.P. the rule for granting increment was
the date of joining of the service/ date of promotion. The rule has been
changed after the 6th CPC with the date of increment being taken as a uniform
date of 1st July and as per CCS revised pay rules of 2008 after completion of 6
months of service in the grade/pay scale, one would become eligible for grant
of an increment. Moreover, the concept of taking 50% of last pay drawn for
granting of pension has been brought into vogue from 2006 onwards. The
change in the rules subsequent to C. Subba Rao judgment have made it
irrelevant.
Rekha Mukherjee vs Ashis Kumar Das & Ors on 3 March, 2005
(b) Rekha Mukherjee v. Ashis Kumar Das, (2005) 3 SCC 427 :36. The
respondents herein cannot take advantage of their own mistake.
Union Of India And Ors vs Hindustan Development Corpn. And Ors on 15 April, 1993
VI. Moreover, it was never the intention of the 6th /7th CPC to deny
the increment by ushering in a uniform date for awarding an increment.
Setting forth a hyper technical argument that though the applicants have put
in 12 months service, yet for not being on duty on 1 st July, they are
ineligible, is invalid since the very object of rationalising the grant of
increment is defeated. The object was to rationalise and not deny a
17 OA No.020/328/2020
legitimate benefit, which is contrary to the doctrine of legitimate
expectations. Under the said doctrine, a procedural angularity and
impropriety has crept in and therefore, requires correction. The
administrative decision of denying the benefit sought can be firmly and
authoritatively questioned based on grounds of illegality, irrationality &
procedural impropriety as laid in Union of India vs. Hindustan
Development Corporation [(1993) 3 SCC 499]. Applicants have exercised
such a right in filing the present OA deprecating the decision of rejection,
which for reasons discussed so far, call for a view to be taken in favour of
the applicants.
Bihar State Electricity Board And Ors. vs Bhowra Kankanee Collieries Ltd. And ... on 10 September, 1981
Equality, the bedrock of our Constitution, is to be upheld and not let down
as in the case of the applicants. Further, the respondents claiming that the
grant of increment on 1st July would tantamount to grant of advance
increment and thereby favouring the pensioners like the applicants would
be discriminative since those in service have not been extended such a
benefit, lacks appreciative value. Respondents without hesitation submit
that such a decision would usher in inequality between pensioners and
regular employees with the former favoured without a reasonable basis.
This argument lacks logic since the increment is granted after rendering one
20 OA No.020/328/2020
year of service and therefore by no stretch of imagination it can be referred
to as an advance increment for the service to be rendered as has been
attempted to be made out by the respondents nor would the inequality arise
as claimed for the reason stated. Another similar assertion made by the
respondents is that the increment has to be granted from the future point of
time. This submission is difficult to accept since the grant of increment is
based on the fundamental premise of past performance and service
rendered. Respondents by making the above submissions were frequently
hovering around technical aspects leaving the substantive aspects open to
challenge. It is not out of place to state that substantive justice should
prevail over the technical one as observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
Bihar State Electricity Board vs. Bhowra Kankanee Collieries Ltd., in
1984 Supp SCC 597, as under:
Bhupendra Nath Hazarika & Anr vs State Of Assam & Ors on 30 November, 2012
(X) Grant of increment on rendering 12 months service is a
service condition. Any change in the same cannot be made without putting
those adversely effected on notice, as per Principles of Natural Justice.
Such an attempt, if made, would have enabled the respondents to work out
remedies within the ambit of rules and law. In this regard the respondents
submitted that some of the applicants represented, some have not and
therefore, there they had no opportunity to take a view in respect of those
who did not represent. We are surprised at this submission since grant of
increment is a service condition and any change in the same for whatever
reason it may be, the respondents need to have taken the initiative to make
it clear as to what their stand is in regard to the issue rather than making a
22 OA No.020/328/2020
meek submission that there is no representation from some of the
applicants. More so, applicants lacking bargaining power, is all the more
reason for the respondents, who are model employers and be role models
for others, to go into the pros and cons of the issue and resolve it, rather
than forcing the applicants who are in the evening of their life with little
strength and debilitated finances, to approach the Tribunal. Role of a model
employer, as highlighted by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Bhupendra Nath
Hazarika & Anr vs State Of Assam & Ors on 30 November, 2012 in CA
Nos. 8514-8515 of 2012, as under, is the underlying theme, which has to be
adhered to by the respondents: