Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.51 seconds)
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs R. Santhakumar Velusamy & Ors on 6 September, 2011 cites

Lalit Mohan Deb & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 February, 1972

".........As mentioned earlier, the selection grade post is not a post to which promotion has to be made nor is there any efficiency bar rule attached to it. Further it is not shown that the Governor had issued any executive instructions as it had been done in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (1968) 1 SCR 111 and in Lalit Mohan Deb and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1973) 3 SCC 862 enabling the High Court to withhold increments in the extended pay scale which is in this case called as selection grade pay scale. The pay scale to which a judicial officer is entitled is a condition of service which can be regulated by a statute or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 or by executive instructions issued under Article 162 of the Constitution. It cannot come within the range of the expression 'control' in Article 235 of the Constitution. (See B.S. Yadav and Ors. etc. v. State of Haryana and Ors. etc. (1981) 1 SCR 1024). It is only where there is such a law, rule or executive instruction, the High Court may act under Article 235 of the Constitution to sanction it or to refuse to sanction it. We are of the view that in the present case the mere nomenclature given to the extended pay scale as the selection grade pay scale does not lead to the inference that there is an element of selection involved in sanctioning it. In the circumstances it should be 17 treated as just an extended pay scale which forms part of the pay scale of Rs. 900-1800 as clarified in two Government orders sanctioning the selection grade posts. ........."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 112 - Full Document

Dayaram Asanand Gursahani vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 22 February, 1984

"The High Court has referred to the decision of this Court in Dayaram Asanand Gursahani v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [1984] 2 SCR 703, wherein, after considering the resolution of the State Government sanctioning the post of District Judge in the Selection Grade, this Court has held that the said resolution did not indicate that there was any process of promotion by selection or otherwise from the cadre of District Judges to the Selection Grade District Judges. In the particular facts of that case it was held that mere nomenclature given to the extended pay scale as the Selection Grade pay Scale does not lead to the inference that there is no element of selection involved in sanctioning it and that it should be treated as just an extended pay scale which forms part of the pay scale. The position in the present case is, however, different. Here the Selection Scale is a separate scale and is not an extension of the Senior Scale. Moreover appointment to the Selection Scale is made by selection on the basis of merit and seniority-cum-merit in accordance with Rule 28(A) of the Rules."
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 42 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Sant Ram Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 7 August, 1967

".........As mentioned earlier, the selection grade post is not a post to which promotion has to be made nor is there any efficiency bar rule attached to it. Further it is not shown that the Governor had issued any executive instructions as it had been done in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (1968) 1 SCR 111 and in Lalit Mohan Deb and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1973) 3 SCC 862 enabling the High Court to withhold increments in the extended pay scale which is in this case called as selection grade pay scale. The pay scale to which a judicial officer is entitled is a condition of service which can be regulated by a statute or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 or by executive instructions issued under Article 162 of the Constitution. It cannot come within the range of the expression 'control' in Article 235 of the Constitution. (See B.S. Yadav and Ors. etc. v. State of Haryana and Ors. etc. (1981) 1 SCR 1024). It is only where there is such a law, rule or executive instruction, the High Court may act under Article 235 of the Constitution to sanction it or to refuse to sanction it. We are of the view that in the present case the mere nomenclature given to the extended pay scale as the selection grade pay scale does not lead to the inference that there is an element of selection involved in sanctioning it. In the circumstances it should be 17 treated as just an extended pay scale which forms part of the pay scale of Rs. 900-1800 as clarified in two Government orders sanctioning the selection grade posts. ........."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 592 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Union Of India And Anr vs S.S. Ranade on 25 April, 1995

8. The Full Bench of the Tribunal differed from the decision of its Ahmadabad Bench and held that the decision of the Gujarat High Court affirming the said decision was also of no assistance as it was at variance with the decisions of this Court in Union of India vs. S.S. Ranade - 1995 (4) SCC 462, Lalit Mohan Deb v. Union of India - 1973 (3) SCC 862, State of Rajasthan vs. Fateh Chand Soni - 1996 (1) SCC 562, and Ram Prasad vs. D.K. Vijay - 1999 (7) SCC 251. It held that the BCR upgradation to Grade IV in the telecom department amounted to promotion, attracting reservation for SCs and STs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 73 - S V Manohar - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan vs Fateh Chand Soni on 12 December, 1995

In Fateh Chand Soni (supra), the issue was whether seniority in the selection grade (in the Rajasthan Police Service) was to be fixed on the basis of date of appointment to the selection scale or on the basis of seniority in the senior scale irrespective of the date on which appointment was made to the selection scale. This Court held that appointment to the selection scale of an officer in the senior scale in the service constituted promotion and seniority in the selection scale had to be fixed on the basis of the date of selection and a person selected and appointed as a result of an earlier selection would rank senior to a person who is selected and appointed as a result of a subsequent selection. We note below the reasoning of this Court :
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 94 - S C Agrawal - Full Document
1   2 Next