Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.24 seconds)Article 7 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Randhir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 February, 1982
42.3. The principle of "equal pay for equal work",
applies to cases of unequal scales of pay, based on no
classification or irrational classification (see Randhir
Singh case [Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1
SCC 618 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 119] ).
State Of U.P. & Ors vs U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha ... on 6 November, 1995
Learned counsel relies on the case of State of U.P. and
Ors. Vs. U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Shramik Sangh (1996)
7 SCC 34 and argues that the Apex Court has held that daily wagers
engaged in exigencies to do manual work, at rates fixed under the
Minimum Wages Act, although performing work, like that of a regular
employee, cannot be granted parity in pay scales in the absence of
specified posts, on which they are appointed.
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs K.V. Baby And Anr. on 21 August, 1997
Learned counsel further
submits that the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.V.
Baby (1998) 9 SCC 252 had set aside a judgment of the Central
Administrative Tribunal which had granted a pay scale of regular
employees to contractual employees.
Rattan Lal & Ors. Etc.Etc vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 16 August, 1985
15. Learned counsel further argues that the cases of Dr. (Mrs.) Sangeeta
Narang and Ors. (supra) and Rattan Lal and Ors. Vs. State of
Haryana and Ors. (1985) 4 SCC 43 relied upon by the respondents
would not apply to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in both
these cases the concerned departments had regular posts and were
appointing persons on contract basis to perform identical functions.
Krishena Kumar And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 July, 1990
16. It is next contended that the direction given by the Tribunal will create
an additional financial burden on the petitioner and the Apex Court in
Krishena Kumar Vs. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1780 has clearly
held that Courts would not issue directions to the Government which
would have financial implication and are contrary to its policies.
State Fishery Officers ... vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 21 March, 1997
Reliance is also placed in this regard in the case of State Fishries
Officers Association, W.B. and Anr. Vs. State of W.B. and Anr
(1997) 9 SCC 65.
State Of Punjab And Ors vs Jagjit Singh And Ors on 26 October, 2016
24. As regards the contention of the petitioner that fixation of pay scales is
not the domain of the Courts, there is not and cannot be a quarrel with
W.P.(C) 6441/2003 Page 11 of 19
the said proposition. Undoubtedly, it is for the Government, with the
expertise and aid of Pay Commissions, to enter into this arena, but it is
equally true that in cases where there is parity in terms of
qualifications and nature of work, and yet the Employer denies regular
pay scales, the Courts have interfered in their power of judicial review
under the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work'. We are fortified in
this view by a recent judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab
and Ors. (supra) on both the aspects involved in the present case, viz.,
interference in matters of pay scale in a judicial review and grant of
regular pay scales to temporary/ad-hoc/contract employees. The Apex
Court in the said case has considered all the judgments relating to the
pay scales, more particularly, on the two issues mentioned
hereinabove. The claim raised by the temporary/ad-hoc/contract
employees in the said case was with regard to the regular pay scales
and was pitched on the concept of similar duties and responsibilities
as well as similar qualifications at par with those of the regular
employees. After considering a whole plethora of cases on pay scales
the Apex Court laid down certain broad parameters to serve as
guidelines. The relevant parameters for the purpose of deciding the
present controversy are as under:-
Orissa University Of Agriculture & ... vs Manoj K. Mohanty on 17 April, 2003
"42.1. The "onus of proof" of parity in the duties and
responsibilities of the subject post with the reference post
under the principle of "equal pay for equal work" lies on
the person who claims it. He who approaches the court
has to establish that the subject post occupied by him
requires him to discharge equal work of equal value, as
the reference post (see Orissa University of Agriculture
& Technology case [Orissa University of Agriculture &
Technology v. Manoj K. Mohanty, (2003) 5 SCC 188 :