Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)Mrs. Nirmal Kanta vs New Delhi Municipal Council (Ndmc) on 12 March, 2013
In the order in OA No.1313/2011 dated 12.03.2013 Mrs. Nirmal
Kanta (supra) in Paragraphs-22 to 24, the Bench had observed as
follows:-
Union Of India & Anr vs R. Swaminathan on 12 September, 1997
"22..................In the case of Union of India and Another vs. R.
Swaminathan & Ors. 1997 SCC (L&S) 1852, in the judgment
delivered on 12.09.1997, the Hon'ble Apex Court, speaking
through Justice Sujata V. Manohar, had laid down the law that
when juniors were officiating on a promotional post on
account of their local adhoc promotions, while seniors were
not so officiating before their regular promotion, by
operation of proviso to FR 22, the juniors already officiating
on a promotional post were rightly given higher pay than
their seniors, who were not so officiating on a promotional
post, and it was not an anomaly. It was also held that in such
cases higher pay of juniors was not amenable to application of
FR 22-C/FR 22 (I) (a) (1). It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court
that pay is not a criterion of seniority, and seniors are not
entitled to seek stepping up of their pay with reference to
17
OA-306/2014
the pay of their juniors, without being able to make out a
legal claim for their case.
Union Of India & Ors vs Ashoke Kumar Banerjee on 13 May, 1998
23. Further, in the context of applicability of FR 22 (I) (a) (1) the
Hon'ble Apex Court had in the case of Union of India vs.
Ashoke Kumar Banerjee 1998 (2) AJT 661 (SC), held that for
determining the applicability of FR 22 (I) (a) (1), it was not
merely sufficient that officers get a promotion from one post
to another involving higher duties and responsibilities, but
the other condition must also be satisfied, that he should
move from a lower pay scale attached to a lower post, to a
higher scale of pay, attached to the higher post. When the
ratio of this judgment is applied to the case of the applicant
herein, she had got her promotional benefit in April 2008
through Annexure A-4, and also an entitlement to apply for an
option under FR 22 (I) (a) (1), and, therefore, she cannot now be
allowed to assail the fixation of her pay beyond what had been
fixed as a result of the fixation of her pay after the exercise of an
option by her under Annexure A-4.
Chandigarh Administration vs Jagjit Singh on 10 January, 1995
Without disguise the
attempt of the senior, is to get the benefit of a higher
pay, by comparison. Without challenge the wrong, he
cannot claim a remedy from a wrong. Such
collational reliefs are alien to law. The decision of
the Supreme Court in Chandigarh Administration
vs. Jagjit Singh [1995] SCC 745 supports this view.
State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Etc. Etc vs G. Sreenivasa Rao & Ors. Etc. Etc on 13 March, 1989
13. Thus, it is clear from these cases, any higher pay
drawn by a junior due to fortuitous circumstance does
not automatically entitle the senior to lay a claim for
stepping up of his pay, unless the conditions as laid down
by the OM dated 4.2.1966 are satisfied. Life is full of
fortuitous circumstances...."
S.N. Rai And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 2 February, 1979
On a
perusal of the judgment of the Principal Bench in N. Lalitha (supra),
and the other judgments and orders passed by various Benches of this
Tribunal, which had been cited by the applicant, it appears that the
applicant cannot be allowed to derive any benefits from those judgments
also, in the face of the ratio of the Karnataka High Court's judgment
reproduced above.
Anil Parmar Son Of Sh Shiv Rattan Singh ... vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 13 November, 2014
iv) Anil Chandra Das vs. Union of India (1998) 7 ATC 224
delivered by Calcutta Bench of CAT affirmed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in SLP No. 13994/1991.
Dr. K.K. Sharma, Assistant Surgeon Vet, ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through Secretary, ... on 8 August, 2008
"14. xxx xxx xxx xxx
"15. The arguments based upon Article 14 of the
Constitution also fell for consideration by the Hyderabad Full
Bench of the Tribunal, in B.K. Somayajulu's case [supra]
and it was disposed of as under:-
The Director, Isro Satellite Centre vs V S Uma Devi on 3 April, 2014
However, during his
arguments, the learned counsel for respondents produced a copy of the
order dated 03.04.2014 passed by the Karnataka High Court in W.P. No.
26424 of 2012 (S. CAT)-The Director ISRO Satellite Centre,
Bangalore and others vs. V.S. Uma Devi, through which that order
dated 22.02.2012 passed by Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal (supra)
had been set aside by the Karnataka High Court, holding as follows: