Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.38 seconds)Section 34 in Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M.R. Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 August, 1995
In M.R. Gupta v.
Union of India6, while adjudicating on the issue of whether claim of
correct pay-fixation was barred by delay and limitation, this court
observed as follows –
“6. The Tribunal misdirected itself when it treated the appellant's
claim as “one time action” meaning thereby that it was not a
continuing wrong based on a recurring cause of action. The claim to
be paid the correct salary computed on the basis of proper pay
fixation, is a right which subsists during the entire tenure of service
and can be exercised at the time of each payment of the salary when
the employee is entitled to salary computed correctly in accordance
with the rules. This right of a government servant to be paid the correct
salary throughout his tenure according to computation made in
accordance with the rules, is akin to the right of redemption which is
an incident of a subsisting mortgage and subsists so long as the
mortgage itself subsists, unless the equity of redemption is
extinguished. It is settled that the right of redemption is of this kind.
Thota China Subha Rao vs Mattapalli Raju on 10 May, 1949
(See Thota China Subba Rao v. Mattapalli Raju [AIR 1950 FC 1 : 1949
FCR 484 : 50 Bom LR 181 : (1950) 1 MLJ 752] ).”(emphasis supplied)
Amrit Lal Berry vs Collector Of Central Excise, New Delhi & ... on 10 December, 1974
“14. It is a well settled principle of law that where a citizen
aggrieved by an action of the government department has approached
18
the court and obtained a declaration of law in his/her favour, others
similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for
them to go to court. [See Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise,
New Delhi, (1975) 4 SCC 714]”
Section 27 in Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
Alakh Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Bihar on 24 January, 2023
11. Learned counsel for the Appellant – Employee, Mr. S.S. Pandey,
contended that the Appellant’s case is squarely covered by the
judgment of the Patna High Court in Nagendra Sahani (Supra) and
Alakh Kumar Sinha (Supra), wherein it was held that all 16
categories of posts arising from the same recruitment process were
entitled to the higher revised pay scale of ₹1600–2780 with effect from
01.01.1986. Additionally, it was held therein that similarly situated
persons need not individually approach the Court for the same relief.
Nagendra Sahni @ Kokarwa vs The State Of Bihar on 26 August, 2022
6. In the meantime, the Fitment Appellate Committee headed by
Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Aftab Alam, on 15.01.2000, examined the
anomaly afresh and recommended the uniform revised scale of
₹5000-8000 for all sixteen posts. Relying on the judgment in
Nagendra Sahani (Supra) and the Fitment Appellate Committee’s
report, the Appellant addressed representations to the Respondent -
Employer, on 01.04.2001 and 27.04.2002, seeking grant of the
higher scale of pay from the date of his appointment. However, these
representations were rejected vide letter dated 13.09.2004. In the
meantime, by promulgation of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 20003,
the State of Jharkhand was carved out of the territory of the State of
3 Act No. 30 of 2000.
5
Bihar, and the services of the Appellant, who was earlier appointed
by the State of Bihar were allocated to the State of Jharkhand.
Suprita Chandel vs Union Of India on 9 October, 2023
27. Additionally, we also note that the respondents did not produce
any material on record to show that the case of the present Appellant
is different from those with whom he seeks parity. Therefore, when
other similarly situated employees have already been granted the
benefit through judicial pronouncement, it would be grossly unjust
to deny the same relief to the Appellant. This conclusion is further
substantiated by judgement in Suprita Chandel (Supra), wherein
this court observed as thus -