Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)
Kaka Ram vs Punjab State Civil Supplies Co on 14 February, 2025 cites

Union Of India vs Ilmo Devi . on 7 October, 2021

11 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 18-02-2025 03:01:16 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:021560 CWP-15751-2000 2025:PHHC: 021560 "18. Though, we are of the opinion that even the direction contained in para 23 for granting minimum basic pay of Group 'D' posts from a particular date to those, who have completed 20 years of part-time daily wage service also is unsustainable as the part-time wagers, who are working for four to five hours a day and cannot claim the parity with other Group 'D' posts. However, in view of the order passed by this Court dated 22-7-2016 [Union of India v. Ilmo Devi, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1933] while issuing notice in the present appeals, we are not quashing and setting aside the directions contained in para 23 in the impugned judgment and order [Union of India v. Ilmo Devi, 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 5144] so far as the respondents' employees are concerned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 56 - M R Shah - Full Document

State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jasmer Singh & Ors on 7 November, 1996

3.2 Respondents further submitted that petitioner is not entitled to be paid the pay scale of regular employee on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' as is claimed by him. Reliance is placed on 'State of Haryana Vs. Jasmer Singh, 1997 (1) RSJ 445. Respondents also oppose the claim of the petitioner to promote him submitting that petitioner cannot be regularized as per the instructions issued by the Government, therefore, there is no question of promoting him as Class III on the basis of 15% quota. It is also submitted that Gurmail Singh and Gurdev Singh as named by the petitioner, were reinstated with continuity in service by the Labour Court and therefore, petitioner cannot claim parity with them.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 450 - S V Manohar - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Ors vs Jagjit Singh And Ors on 26 October, 2016

21. From the conjoint reading of judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagjit Singh (supra), Bahadur Singh (supra), Uma Devi (supra) and Ilmo Devi (supra), it can be culled out that part time employees, who are working for few hours cannot claim pay parity. Daily wage workers, who work at par with regular employees, though cannot claim pay parity with regular employees yet they are entitled to minimum pay. The minimum pay includes dearness allowance and grade pay.
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 2405 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Piare Lal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 February, 1975

14. The contention of the petitioner that he was liable to be regularized w.e.f. January 1983 is liable to be rejected not only for the reasons discussed above but also for another reason. As noticed above, petitioner has been regularized w.e.f. 31.05.2007 vide order 31.05.2007. This petition was filed in 2000. Petitioner never got his petition amended, so as to challenge the order dated 31.5.2017 and claim that he should been regularized w.e.f. January 1983 and not from subsequent date of 31.5.2007. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Piare Lal vs. Union of India 1975 AIR Supreme Court 650 "7. ................... We do not think we can entertain these contentions urged on behalf of the appellant 'against the validity of the two orders dated 28th October, 1966, since there is no challenge to these two orders in the petition. The appellant could have very well amended the petition and challenged the validity of the two orders dated 28th October, 1966 before the petition was heard and disposed of by the High Court, but the appellant failed to do so. The appellant did not care to apply for amendment of the petition even after the appeal was preferred in this Court, and though the appeal remained pending in this Court for about seven years, no application for amendment to the petition was made on behalf of the appellant. It was only after the hearing of the appeal was concluded and when it was pointed out by us that the entire basis of the petition was knocked out by the making of the two orders dated 28th October, 1966 and no relief could be granted to the appellant unless those two orders were successfully impugned, that the appellant asked for time to move an application for amendment of the petition so as to include a challenge to the validity of those two orders. Obviously, we could not grant time for moving such an application for amendment at the stage at which it was sought to be moved. The two orders dated 28th October, 1966 could not be allowed to be challenged by an Page 6 of 13 6 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 18-02-2025 03:01:16 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:021560 CWP-15751-2000 2025:PHHC: 021560 amendment of the petition more than eight years after the date when they were made. It is not possible to believe that the appellant was not aware of the making of these two orders and that he came to know of them for the first time when the affidavit dated 2nd January, 1975 was filed by H.S. Sekhon on behalf of the State Government. The appellant could have amended the petition earlier, at any rate during the long period of seven years when the appeal was pending in this Court, but the appellant was either lax or negligent. We cannot now, after the lapse of such a long time and particularly after the hearing of the appeal is concluded, allow an amendment to the petition. It must follow a fortiori that, in the absence of challenge in the petition, we cannot examine the validity of the two orders dated 28th October, 1966 and strike them down. We must, therefore, hold the petition to have become infructuous by reason of the making of the two orders dated 28th October, 1966 and confirm the dismissal of the petition by the High Court, though for different reasons."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Bahadur Singh And Ors vs Jaspreet Kaur Talwar And Ors on 13 May, 2019

21. From the conjoint reading of judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagjit Singh (supra), Bahadur Singh (supra), Uma Devi (supra) and Ilmo Devi (supra), it can be culled out that part time employees, who are working for few hours cannot claim pay parity. Daily wage workers, who work at par with regular employees, though cannot claim pay parity with regular employees yet they are entitled to minimum pay. The minimum pay includes dearness allowance and grade pay.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 Next