Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.03 seconds)
Union Of India vs Arun Jyoti Kundu & Ors on 27 August, 2007 cites

State Of U.P. And Ors vs Ministerial Karamchari Sangh on 15 October, 1997

It is well settled principle of law that recommendations of the Pay Commission are subject to the acceptance/rejection with modifications of the appropriate Government. So, unless the Government has accepted the recommendation to merge the cadres, the Court cannot proceed on the basis of the recommendation alone or to direct the Government to accept the recommendation. In this context we have also to take note of the decisions of this Court in Dev Kumar Mukherjee (1995 Suppl. (2) SCC 640) that the recommendations of pay scales are not open to judicial review and the one in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ministerial Karamchari Sangh (1998 (1) SCC 422) to the effect that the evaluation of typists for the purposes of pay scales must be left to the expert body.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 69 - K Venkataswami - Full Document

Saurabh Chaudri & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 November, 2003

The role of the Pay Commission and that of the court has also been dealt by the decision of this Court in Saurabh Chaudri and others vs. Union of India and others (2003 (9) SCALE 272) and M.P. Rural Agricultural Officer Association vs. State of M.P. (2004 (4) SCC 646). In the latter decision it was held by this Court that pay commissions are constituted for evaluating duties and functions of the employees and the nature thereof vis-`-vis the educational qualifications therefor. Although the pay commission is an expert body, the State in its wisdom and in furtherance of its valid policy may or may not accept its recommendations.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 182 - V N Khare - Full Document

M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension ... vs State Of M.P. And Anr on 5 April, 2004

The role of the Pay Commission and that of the court has also been dealt by the decision of this Court in Saurabh Chaudri and others vs. Union of India and others (2003 (9) SCALE 272) and M.P. Rural Agricultural Officer Association vs. State of M.P. (2004 (4) SCC 646). In the latter decision it was held by this Court that pay commissions are constituted for evaluating duties and functions of the employees and the nature thereof vis-`-vis the educational qualifications therefor. Although the pay commission is an expert body, the State in its wisdom and in furtherance of its valid policy may or may not accept its recommendations.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 77 - S B Sinha - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Ors vs J.P. Chaurasia & Ors on 27 September, 1988

11. Though the tribunal noticed the decision in State of U.P. and others vs. J.P. Chaurasia and others (1989 (1) SCC 121), it has proceeded on the footing that since the Commission had recommended that the posts of language typists be merged with the clerical cadre even though that has not been done, a direction still could be issued for grant of benefits of the same pay scales as are applicable to the senior clerks, head clerks and office superintendents Grade II, to the respondents with effect from 1.1.1996. In this context, the tribunal has also relied on the fact that on the recommendation of the Anomalies Committee the appellants have accepted the demand of two sets of typists for grant of higher set of pay scale equivalent to their counter parts in the clerical cadre. It has held that on the same analogy there cannot be any justification to deny benefits to typists as a whole.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 372 - K J Shetty - Full Document
1