Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.10 seconds)
Insp /Gd Sandeep Kumar Dubey vs Union Of India & Ors. on 2 December, 2022 cites

Naveen Kumar Jha vs Union Of India And Ors on 2 November, 2012

20. Applying the ratio of law already laid down by this Court in various judgments to the facts of the present case, we find that though petitioner had to undertake two rounds of litigation but he was finally appointed to the post of SI/GD on 07.02.2011 and he has been given seniority at Serial No.21 in the list according to his merit position for the LDCW-2010. Further, the fixation of his pay to the post of SI/GD shall reckon from the day he assumed charge of the said post i.e. 07.02.2011. Though petitioner in the present petition has pleaded that pay of his juniors has been fixed higher W.P.(C) 923/2021 Page 14 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROSY MUNJAL Signing Date:03.12.2022 12:56 Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005278 than him, however, we find that the two officials named by him, namely, Balwant Singh Chauhan and Ram Singh Meena, with whom petitioner is seeking parity, had joined much prior to his joining and therefore, differential in fixation of pay, by adding increments is consequential; whereas the petitioner could not earn increment as he had not completed six months which is a condition precedent to get an increment under Rule 26(3) of Fundamental Rule & Supplementary Rule (FR & SR) Part 1. This Court is informed that petitioner has now been promoted to the post of Inspector. We have also been informed that petitioner has been given seniority as per his rank in merit list of Constable/GD as well as Inspector.
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 31 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Shashi Ranjan Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors on 25 February, 2019

Further the decision in Naveen Kumar Jha (Supra) has been followed by another Coordinate Bench of this Court in Shashi Ranjan Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7323, the petitioner wherein had challenged the rejection of his prayer to grant seniority from the date on which his batch-mates were appointed and further to grant all consequential benefits applicable as per Rules.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Jignesh Kumar vs Union Of India on 17 November, 2021

4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner relied upon decision dated 02.05.2008 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 1510/2007, titled as Barot Jignesh Kumar Versus U.O.I. & Others, wherein based upon the directions passed by this Court, vide order dated 28.10.2014 in WP(C) No. 960/2014, titled as Jignesh Kumar Vs. Union of India And Ors. and order dated 12.05.2016 in WP(C) No. 2108/2016, titled as INSP/GD Bidyadhar Behra & Ors. Vs. Union Of India & Anr. all the similarly situated candidates for the post of SI/GD through LDCE-2006, were granted benefits of fixation of pay, pay and allowances along with other consequential benefits. It was submitted by learned counsel that had pursuant to the order dated 01.09.2011 passed by this Court, petitioner been appointed to the post of SI/GD before 31.12.2011, he would have received his first increment from 01.07.2012 at par with other batch mates. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the fault of respondents, especially when he has been granted seniority according to his merit position in the merit list of LDCE-2010. Learned counsel submitted that had there been no separate reservation for the OBC candidates for LDCE-2010, the name of petitioner would have appeared in the merit list and would not have suffered any disparity.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1