Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.53 seconds)
Omkumar V P vs Revenue on 8 April, 2026 cites

Himachal Road Transport Corporation vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation ... on 22 February, 2021

18. The respondents have also placed reliance on the decisions in Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Another v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation Retired Employees Union [(2021) 4 SCC 502], State of Haryana and another v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association [(2002) 6 SCC 72] and submitted that in the matters of pay structure or promotions, the choice of a cut off date when the new policy regime has to operate, cannot lightly be interfered by the Court. Regarding the latter decision it is submitted that determination of responsibilities is a complex matter in the realm of executive decision making and that the Court should approach such matters with restraint.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 14 - R S Reddy - Full Document

State Of Haryaka And Anr vs Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal ... on 10 July, 2002

18. The respondents have also placed reliance on the decisions in Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Another v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation Retired Employees Union [(2021) 4 SCC 502], State of Haryana and another v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association [(2002) 6 SCC 72] and submitted that in the matters of pay structure or promotions, the choice of a cut off date when the new policy regime has to operate, cannot lightly be interfered by the Court. Regarding the latter decision it is submitted that determination of responsibilities is a complex matter in the realm of executive decision making and that the Court should approach such matters with restraint.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 166 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

The Vice Chairman Delhi Development ... vs Narender Kumar on 8 March, 2022

The respondents have also relied on the decision in Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority v. Narender Kumar and others [Civil Appeal No.1880 of 2002] and also the decision in Steel Authority of India Limited and 2026.04.08 Deepa S 14:41:55 +05'30' 37 others v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya [(2011) 11 SCC 122] and said that determination as to whether two posts are equal or not is a job of the expert committee and the Court should not interfere with it unless the decision of the committee is found to be unreasonable or arbitrary. According to the respondents, the earlier decisions were taken as 'in personam' to the parties therein, which cannot be extended to the applicants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 4 - U U Lalit - Full Document

Steel Authority Of India Ltd.& Ors vs Dibyendu Bhattacharya on 29 October, 2010

The respondents have also relied on the decision in Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority v. Narender Kumar and others [Civil Appeal No.1880 of 2002] and also the decision in Steel Authority of India Limited and 2026.04.08 Deepa S 14:41:55 +05'30' 37 others v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya [(2011) 11 SCC 122] and said that determination as to whether two posts are equal or not is a job of the expert committee and the Court should not interfere with it unless the decision of the committee is found to be unreasonable or arbitrary. According to the respondents, the earlier decisions were taken as 'in personam' to the parties therein, which cannot be extended to the applicants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 56 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs Tarsem Singh on 13 August, 2008

24. But, we must say that these questions have already become res integra. Without delving much deep into the rival contentions, we can straight away allow the OAs basing on the consistent stands taken by various Benches of the Tribunal, some of which have been upheld by the High Courts and atleast in three cases the matter had gone upto the Hon'ble Apex Court, where also it were confirmed. Moreover, as indicated earlier, those orders have already been complied with by the respondents. Particularly, we should say that this Bench had occasion to consider 16 such cases together in O.A.570/2023 etc. and by our common order dated 03.12.2025 we had rejected similar pleas raised by the respondents and directed to grant reliefs to similarly placed applicants notionally from 01.01.1996, but restricting the grant of arrears from three years prior to the institution of the OAs, based on the decision in Union of India and others v. Tarsem Singh [(2008) 8 SCC 648]. As 2026.04.08 Deepa S 14:41:55 +05'30' 40 we noticed earlier, the applicants have produced copy of order dated 26.12.2025 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue honouring our order dated 03.12.2025 and implementing the same. Similar other orders have been produced by the applicants. One such order dated 16.06.2025 shows the decisions passed by various Tribunals have been complied with 'in personam' basis.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 2254 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1   2 Next