Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.39 seconds)

Jagdish Prasad Gupta And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 9 October, 1979

8. A perusal of the decision in Jagidish Prasad's case would show that the issue in consideration before the Division Bench was as to whether a claim petition lay before the Public Service Tribunal under U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 with regard to challenge of termination of Government Roadways Employees on deputation to the Corporation. The Division Bench held that prior to absorption of such Government Roadways Employees in the Corporation, he remained a government servant and as such the claim petition under the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 would be maintainable before the Tribunal. This case does not help the cause of the Corporation. After the petitioner was placed in deputation in the Corporation, the Corporation became entitled to regulate, control and 6 supervise the work of the deputees. The Corporation has failed to point out any law disabling the Corporation from changing the service conditions of the deputationist. The only bar imposed was that in no case the conditions of service of the deputationist would in any way be inferior to those which were applicable under the U.P. Government Roadways. The Government Order dated 28.10.1960 categorically states that the supervisory staff of the rank of Junior Station Incharge and above on the traffic side would be admitted to pension. The Corporation by its notification dated 5.5.1978 upgraded the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector to the post of Traffic Inspector Grade-1 and integrated the said post in the post of Junior Station Incharge and thus the post of Traffic Inspector Grade-1 became equivalent in rank to the post of Junior Station Incharge. Once the two posts were integrated into a common cadre with the same pay scale and common appointing authority, it cannot be said that the post of Traffic Inspector Grade-1 was in any way inferior in rank to that of Junior Station Incharge. If the argument of the Corporation were to be accepted, it would lead to absurd results because if a member of the cadre was absorbed in the Corporation while working as a Junior Station Incharge he would be admitted to pension but if he is absorbed from the post of Traffic Inspector Grade-II he would be denied the said benefit.
Allahabad High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 11 - K N Singh - Full Document

N.C. Dalwadi vs State Of Gujarat on 24 July, 1987

would be entitled for pension. It does not speak about 'post' of 7 Junior Incharge but 'rank' of Junior Station Incharge. Argument of the Corporation implies that until and unless a person holds the post of Junior Station Incharge, he would not be entitled to pension. The argument does not appear to be correct. The words 'post' and 'rank' have a very different meaning in service jurisprudence. The Apex Court in the Case of N.C. Dalwadi Vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 1987 S.C. 1933) while considering a case of compulsory retirement of a Superintendent Engineer had an occasion to decipher the meaning of the word 'rank' and gave it its ordinary meaning as "grade or status".
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 14 - A P Sen - Full Document

R. K. Sabharwal And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 10 February, 1995

Further, the Apex Court in the case of R.K. Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1995 S.C. 1371) while considering the question of relevant 'post', found that the "word post means the appointment, job, office or employment........" Therefore, also it would be irrelevant whether or not the petitioner actually worked as Junior Station Incharge. Once the Corporation has upgraded the post of Traffic Inspector Grade-1 to the rank of Junior Station Incharge, they would be entitled to the benefit of the said Government Order dated 28.10.1960. The Court has already noted above that the two posts had been integrated into a common cadre and made interchangeable which was followed subsequently. "
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 786 - K Singh - Full Document
1