Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)
Vallepu Naga Raju vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 4 August, 2022 cites

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

10. Per contra, strenuously opposing the Writ Petition, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader that there is absolutely no illegality nor there exists any infirmity in the impugned action and in the absence of the same, the questioned orders are not amenable for any judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended by the learned Government Pleader that in the absence of any scale of pay indicated for the post in which the petitioners are working in the Revised Pay Scales, the extension of the same in favour of the petitioners herein does not arise and the reason assigned by respondent No.1 in the impugned letter dated 15.07.2020, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be faulted. It is further submitted that the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court on which the learned counsel for the petitioners is placing reliance is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 2405 - J S Khehar - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Ors. vs Devinder Singh And Ors. on 21 July, 1997

In State of Punjab v. Devinder Singh this Court held, that daily- wagers were entitled to be placed in the minimum of the pay-scale of regular employees, working against the same post. The above direction was issued after accepting, that the concerned employees, were doing the same work as regular incumbents holding the same post, by applying the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 152 - Full Document

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

46.3. Having noticed the conclusion drawn in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, it would be relevant to emphasise, that in the cited judgments (noticed in paragraph 26 onwards, upto paragraph 41), the employees concerned, could not have been granted the benefit of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' (in such of the cases, where it was so granted), because temporary employees (daily-wage employees, in the said case) are never ever selected through a process of open 13 selection, by a specialized selection body/agency. We would therefore be obliged to follow the large number of cases where pay parity was granted, rather than, the instant singular judgment recording a divergent view.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 450 - S V Manohar - Full Document
1