Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.60 seconds)
Pankaj Kar Chaudhuri & Others vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & ... on 28 January, 2025 cites

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

Apart from the fact that the application of the respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was filed in July 1991 was highly belated, the position in this case is no different from that of Union of India v. O.P. Saxena. In this case also the respondent and Shri Sood were appointed to the stationary post from two different sources. The respondent was Driver Grade-C when he was so appointed while Shri Sood was appointed to the stationary post from the post of Driver Grade-A. Therefore, for the reasons contained in the judgment 28 in CA No. 8852 of 1996 the order of the Tribunal has to be set aside."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 64 - Full Document

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

In R. Swaminathan (Supra), in a situation identical to the facts of the present case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that, "7. For the fixation of pay on promotion, therefore, 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. His initial pay in the time-scale of the higher post is fixed at the stage next above this notional pay arrived at in the lower post.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 79 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Manish Gupta And Others vs Gurudas Roy on 9 February, 1995

In the case of Manish Gupta (Supra), in view of the provisions of Rule 55 (4) of the West Bengal Service Rules it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, "we cannot say that there is no merit in the submission of Shri. Sanghi that in view of the proviso to Rule 55(4) the respondent cannot claim the fixation of his basic pay on the same level as the basic pay drawn by Hrishikesh Roy. In our view the appellants could reasonably proceed on the basis that in view of the proviso contained in Rule 55(4) of the Rules the pay of the respondent cannot be fixed at the same level as that the Hrishikesh Roy and, therefore, in fixing the basic pay of the respondent it cannot be said that the appellants had wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the directions given by the Appellate Bench in its order dated September 20, 1989."
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 15 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Etc. Etc vs G. Sreenivasa Rao & Ors. Etc. Etc on 13 March, 1989

37. As regards the 'principle of equal pay for equal work', the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of G. Sreenivasa Rao (Supra) laid down that, "14. We do not agree with the High Court/Tribunal. Doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" cannot be put in a strait-jacket. Although the doctrine finds its place 29 in the Directive Principles but this Court, in various judgments, has authoritatively pronounced that right to "equal pay for equal work" is an accompaniment of equality clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Nevertheless the abstract doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" cannot be read in Article 14. Reasonable classification, based on intelligible criteria having nexus with the object sought to be achieved, is permissible.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 77 - K Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next