Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)The Vice Chairman Delhi Development ... vs Narender Kumar on 8 March, 2022
14. In the present case, this Court is considering the question, as to
whether the employees, who had completed 24 years of regular service
between 1st September, 2008 and 19th May, 2009 would be considered
under the ACP Scheme or under the MACP Scheme. This was also a
question, which directly fell for consideration and decided by the three-
judge Bench of this Court in the case of Vice Chairman Delhi
Development Authority (supra).
The State Of Gujarat And Another vs Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad, Etc on 26 March, 1974
"46.... The legislature however is free to recognise the
degree of harm or evil and to make provisions for the
same. Making dissimilar provisions for one group of
public sector undertakings does not per se make a law
discriminatory as such. It is well-settled that courts will
not sit as super- legislature and strike down a
particular classification on the ground that any under-
inclusion, namely, that some others have been left
untouched so long as there is no violation of
constitutional restraints...... The same principle was
reiterated by this Court in the case of State of Gujarat
v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad [1974 (3) SCR
760]. In that case, this Court was of the view that in
the matter of economic legislation or reform, a
provision would not be struck down on the vice of
under-inclusion, inter alia, for the reason that the
legislature could not be required to impose upon
administrative agencies task which could not be
carried out or which must be carried out on a large
scale at a single stroke. It was further reiterated that
piece meal approach to a general problem permitted
by under-inclusive classifications, is sometimes
justified when it is considered that legislatures deal
with such problems usually on an experimental basis.
It is impossible to tell how successful a particular
approach might be, what dislocation might occur, and
what situation might develop and what new evil might
be generated in the attempt. Administrative expedients
must be forged and tested. Legislators recognizing
these factors might wish to proceed cautiously, and
courts must allow them to do so...."
Union Of India & Ors vs M.V.Valliappan & Ors on 27 July, 1999
In other words,
second ACP up-gradation was not automatic but dependant
on external factors.Furthermore, as held by this Court in M.V.
Mohanan Nair (supra), MACP benefits are only an incentive
meant to relieve stagnation - framed under the executive
policy. Its continued existence cannot be termed as an
enforceable right.
Shankarsan Dash vs Union Of India on 30 April, 1991
36. Such expectation is akin to a candidate being declared
successful in a recruitment process and whose name is
published in the select list. That, such candidate has no
vested right to insist that the public employer must issue an
employment letter, has been held by a Constitution Bench
Judgment of this Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India
[(1991) 3 SCC 47]. Therefore, it is held that employees'
contention that they acquire a vested right in securing the
second ACP benefit is insubstantial.
1