Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.27 seconds)State Of M.P.& Ors vs Ramesh Chandra Bajpai on 28 July, 2009
Others (2008) 10 SCC 1, U.P. SEB and Another v.
Aziz Ahmad (2009) 2 SCC 606 and State of M.P. and
Others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (2009) 13 SCC
Steel Authority Of India Ltd.& Ors vs Dibyendu Bhattacharya on 29 October, 2010
13. The Apex Court in the case titled as Steel Authority of
India Limited and others versus Dibyendu Battacharya,
reported in (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 122, has
discussed the development of law and the judgments
made by the Apex Court right from the year 1968, in
paras 18 to 29 of the judgment herein:
U.T.Administration,Chandigarh & Ors vs Manju Mathur & Anr on 14 January, 2011
14. The Apex Court in Union Territory Administration,
Chandigarh and others versus Manju Mathur and
another, reported in (2011) 2 Supreme Court Cases 452,
held that similarity of designation or nature or quantum of
State Of Punjab & Anr vs Surjit Singh & Ors on 4 August, 2009
15. The Apex Court in the case titled as State of Punjab
&Anr. versus Surjit Singh & Ors., reported in 2009 AIR
SCW 6759, has discussed the development of law right
from the year 1960 till 2009. It is apt to reproduce para
30 of the judgment herein:
New Delhi Municipal Council vs Pan Singh & Ors on 8 March, 2007
16. It would also be profitable to reproduce para 13 of
the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in New Delhi
Municipal Council versus Pan Singh & Ors., reported in
2007 AIR SCW 1705, herein:
State Of Haryana & Ors vs Charanjit Singh & Ors., Etc. Etc on 5 October, 2005
17. The Apex Court in a case titled as State of Haryana
and others versus Charanjit Singh and others etc. etc.,
reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 161, held that the
principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has no mechanical
application in every case. It is apt to reproduce para 17 of
the judgment herein:
Haryana State Minor Irrigation ... vs G. S. Uppal & Ors on 16 April, 2008
"11. The scope of judicial review in the matters
concerning grant of pay scales, its revision and related
issues is well defined. The Court should interfere only
when the administrative action is palpably unreasonable,
unjustified and prejudicial to a section of employees.
Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment
passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana State
Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and others
Vs. G.S. Uppal and Others, (2008) 7 SCC 375, it has
been held as under:-
Shiba Kumar Dutta & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 February, 1997
12. Similarly, in Shiba Kumar Dutta and Others Vs.
Union of India and Others, (1997) 3 SCC 545, Hon'ble
Supreme Court has deprecated the practice adopted for
invidious discrimination and denial of equal treatment by
the employers to its employees.
Union Of India & Anr vs P.K. Roy & Ors on 9 November, 1967
(iv) The salary of the post (vide Union of India and
Another v. P.K. Roy and Others.