Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.87 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Daya Lal & Ors on 13 January, 2011
“16.In State of Rajasthan vs. Daya Lal [State of
Rajasthan v. Daya Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 429 : (2011) 1 SCC
(L&S) 340] , this Court has considered the scope of
regularisation of irregular or part-time appointments in all
possible eventualities and this Court clearly laid down that
part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation
as they do not work against any sanctioned posts. It was
also held that part-time employees in government-run
institutions can in no case claim parity in salary with
regular employees of the Government on the principle of
equal pay for equal work. Relevant excerpt from the said
judgment is as under: (SCC pp. 435-36, para 12) 12. We
may at the outset refer to the following well-settled
32/40
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.14698/2014
principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay,
relevant in the context of these appeals:
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
(v) Part-time temporary employees in government-
run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular
employees of the Government on the principle of equal
pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private
employment, even if serving full-time, seek parity in salary
with government employees. The right to claim a
particular salary against the State must arise under a
contract or under a statute.[See State of Karnataka v. Uma
Devi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC
1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , M. Raja v. CEERI Educational
34/40
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.14698/2014
Society[M. Raja v. CEERI Educational Society, (2006) 12
SCC 636 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 334] , S.C. Chandra v.
State of Jharkhand [S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand,
(2007) 8 SCC 279 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 897 : 2
SCEC 943] , Kurukshetra Central Coop. Bank Ltd. v.
Mehar Chand [Kurukshetra Central Coop. Bank Ltd.v.
Mehar Chand, (2007) 15 SCC 680 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S)
742] and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand [Official
http://www.judis.nic.in Liquidator v. Dayanand, (2008) 10
SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943] .] (emphasis supplied)
State Of Karnataka And Anr vs H. Ganesh Kamath Etc. Etc on 31 March, 1983
Reported in MANU/SC/0450/1979 : (1979)IILL J209SC on
the other, which has been brought out in one of the
judgments under appeal of Karnataka High Court in State
12/40
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.14698/2014
of Karnataka v. H. Ganesh Rao decided on 1.6.2000,
reported in2001 (4) KLJ 466, learned Additional Solicitor
General urged that the scheme for regularization is
repugnant to Articles 16(4), 309, 320 and 335 of the
Constitution of India and, therefore, these cases are
required to be heard by a Bench of Five learned Judges
(Constitution Bench).
State Of Punjab vs Jagdip Singh & Ors on 19 September, 1963
In this context,we have also to bear in mind
the exposition of law by a Constitution Bench in Stateof
Punjab v. Jagdip Singh and Ors. MANU/SC/0273/1963 :
2Ec.To Govt.,School Education ... vs Thiru R.Govindaswamy & Ors on 21 February, 2014
11.The said legal principles were once again reiterated by the
Two Judges Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case
of Secretary to Government, School Education Department,
Chennai Vs. R.Govindaswamy and others reported in (2014) 4
Supreme Court Cases 769, held that:
Court In The Case Of Secretary, State Of ... vs . Uma on 9 April, 2015
(v) Part-time temporary employees in government-
run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular
employees of the Government on the principle of equal
pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private
employment, even if serving full-time, seek parity in salary
with government employees. The right to claim a
particular salary against the State must arise under a
contract or under a statute.[See State of Karnataka v. Uma
Devi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC
1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , M. Raja v. CEERI Educational
34/40
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.14698/2014
Society[M. Raja v. CEERI Educational Society, (2006) 12
SCC 636 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 334] , S.C. Chandra v.
State of Jharkhand [S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand,
(2007) 8 SCC 279 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 897 : 2
SCEC 943] , Kurukshetra Central Coop. Bank Ltd. v.
Mehar Chand [Kurukshetra Central Coop. Bank Ltd.v.
Mehar Chand, (2007) 15 SCC 680 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S)
742] and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand [Official
http://www.judis.nic.in Liquidator v. Dayanand, (2008) 10
SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943] .] (emphasis supplied)