Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)State Of Haryaka And Anr vs Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal ... on 10 July, 2002
In support of this contention, he has placed
reliance in the case of State of Haryana and Anr. v. Haryana
Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association (2002) 6 SCC 72
and Union of India and Anr. v. S.B. Vohra and Ors. (2004) 2
SCC 150.
Union Of India And Anr vs S.B. Vohra And Ors on 5 January, 2004
In S.B. Vohra's case (supra), this Court dealing with the
fixation of pay scales of officers of the High Court of Delhi
(Assistant Registrars) has held that the fixation of pay scale is
within the exclusive domain of Chief Justice, subject to
approval of President/Governor of the State and the matter
should either be examined by an expert body or in its absence
by Chief Justice and the Central/State Government should
attend to the suggestions of the Chief Justice with reasonable
promptitude so as to satisfy the test of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Further, it is observed that financial
implications vis-`-vis effect of grant of a particular scale of pay
may not always be a sufficient reason and differences should
be mutually discussed and tried to be solved.
In the present cases, in compliance to the judgment of
the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the Vice-
Chancellor of the Mysore University constituted a Committee
headed by Shri Hiriyanna. The said Committee, in its Report
dated 8.6.1991, has recorded the obversvations that the
details of the pay scales assigned by the 'Muddappa
Committee', 'the Manjunath Committee', 'the Acharya
Committee', 'the Gopala Reddy Committee' as also the pay
scales given effect to from 1.1.1977 and the claims of the
appellants, on individual basis, could perhaps have been
attended to by the University itself after the 'Muddappa
Committee' made its recommendations. The Vice-Chancellor
and Registrar of the Mysore University, while appearing before
the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in C.C.C. Nos.
84 to 103 of 1992 in compliance to the Order dated 16th April,
1992 had brought to the notice of the Bench that the direction
issued by the learned Single Judge in W.A. Nos.2220 to
2239/1989 dated 18.4.1990 and 29.1.1991 had already been
complied with and arrears of salary had been paid to the
employees of the University, who filed the said Writ Petitions.
Thereafter, the respondent-University submitted certain
proposed amendments to the Statute and the same were sent
to the State Government for approval. The State Government,
for the reasons best known to it, till date has not been able to
state any good reason as to why the amendment of the Statute
as proposed by the University in regard to the fixation of the
pay scales of its employees could not have been approved by
the competent authority. The Vice-Chancellor in its affidavit
dated 25.1.2000 filed in the Writ Appeal Nos. 7007-55/1999
has categorically stated that the respondent-University, in its
Meeting held on 17.4.1999, decided to comply with the orders
of the Court and also to extend the benefit of the revised pay
scale with effect from 1.1.1977 to those employees who are
eligible for such benefits and have not gone to the Court. This
decision was taken on the representation submitted by the
appellants.
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000
Section 4 in The Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1