Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.35 seconds)
All India Esi Corporation Employees ... vs Director General, Esi Corporation And ... on 17 March, 1999 cites

Randhir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 February, 1982

As regards classification, we are not in a position to accept respondents denial of the scale to the applicants just because the latter belong to Category "C" whereas those in the CSS belong to category "B". We find that while filing their counter on 23.3.88 in OA 1538/87, the Union of India (DoPT - R-l) therein have admitted that "It is denied that Group "C" employees cannot get higher salary than the Group B employees. Classification of post is not relevant in determining the scale of pay". The fact that 4th Pay Commission was aware of this is borne out of the details in para 26.50 of Part I of its report. In the saidreply, respondent's have also admitted that "classification of Assistants as Group B has been done not due to duties and responsibilities of the post but only for (i) historical reasons and (ii) due to the fact that recruitment to Assistant grade is being done through UPSC which undertakes recruitment to Group A and Group B services/posts only. Classification of posts as has been submitted earlier is done under CCS(CCA) Rules on the basis of scale of pay attached to and not on the basis of duties and responsibilities attached to such posts". It has also been contended that there is no violation of principles of classification simply because certain group "C" posts have been given a higher pay than that of Assistants which has been classified as Group "B". In fact, the classification given to the post of Assistants as Group B was by itself as a measure of exception/indulgence. This very aspect was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Randhir Singh (supra) wherein Chinnappa Reddy J. while speaking for the Bench observed as hereunder :
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 521 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Roshan Lal Tandon vs Union Of India on 14 August, 1967

(d) Applicants have also cited the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Das v. State of Haryana 1987 (2) ATJ 479, as well as Roshan Lal Tandon v. UOI, AIR 1967 SC 1889 to say that once certain group forms a class, no discrimination can be made on the basis of source of recruitment. It has been submitted that no distinction can be made in regard to pay scale of Rs. 425-800 or Rs. 425-700 if the nature of duties and responsibilities are the same. Controverting respondents claim that Section 17(2)(b) of ESI Act enforces a bar on grant of parity in the pay scale with that of Central Government employees, applicants would argue that Section 17(2)(b) deals with fixation of pay scale under Clause (a) and merely states that Corporation shall have regard to the educational qualification, method of recruitment, duties and responsibilities etc. of such officer while considering appropriate pay scale. This can by no stretch of imagination be read as a bar to grant of parity in pay scale. On the contrary, Section 17(2)(a) is mandatory in so far as it uses the word "shall" and has specified that the method of recruitment, salary and allowances and other conditions shall be such as may be specified in accordance with the rules and orders applicable to the officers and employees of the Central Government drawing corresponding scale of pay. In fact, the Corporation has recommended grant of scale of pay of Rs. 1640-2900 for the applicants herein. Applicants would assert that as per the approval given by the Central Government (R-1), Assistants of the ESIC have been equated with the Assistants of the attached and subordinate offices of the Central Government from 1948.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 421 - V Ramaswami - Full Document
1