Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.23 seconds)
Dr. Reena Ramachandran vs Union Of India & Ors. on 28 September, 2011 cites

State Bank Of India And Ors vs K.P. Subbaiah And Ors on 16 July, 2003

19. One thing is clear from the above OM dated 19th July 1995. It was not only the total of the basic pay, DA, and fitment amount as of 1st January 1992 that was protected but also the personal pay wherever applicable "along with the basic pay." The clarification issued on 6th February 1996 by Respondent No. 2 to the effect that personal pay would also be counted as „pay‟ for the purpose of DA is also significant. This is consistent with the law explained by the Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. K.P. Subbaiah that (SCC, p. 655): "when a question of pay protection comes, the basic feature is that the fitment or fixation of pay in a particular scale must be such as to ensure that the total emoluments are not reduced." In the context of the present case, last drawn pay cannot be narrowly construed as last drawn „pay scale‟. The two are not the same. Under Fundamental W. P. (C) No. 738 of 2004 Page 9 of 12 Rule 9 (21), „pay‟ is defined to include special pay and personal pay.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 32 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Basudev Pati vs State Of Orissa & Anr on 3 March, 1997

22. The decisions in Basudev Pati v. State of Orissa and M. Raja v. CEERI Educational Society Pilani deal with the question of revision or grant of pay scales and not so much as protection of last drawn personal pay. In neither case was there a notification similar to OM dated 19th July 1995 which envisages not only protection of last drawn pay scale but personal pay, special pay etc. drawn in addition to basic pay. To reiterate, the question in the present case is not about revision of pay scale but the grant of enhanced personal pay which, as clarified by the ONGC, was revised in the case of board level and below board level executives of ONGC to Rs. 2,102/- as of 1st January 1992 and merged in the personal pay granted as of that date.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

M. Raja vs Ceeri Educational Society Pilani & Anr on 31 October, 2006

22. The decisions in Basudev Pati v. State of Orissa and M. Raja v. CEERI Educational Society Pilani deal with the question of revision or grant of pay scales and not so much as protection of last drawn personal pay. In neither case was there a notification similar to OM dated 19th July 1995 which envisages not only protection of last drawn pay scale but personal pay, special pay etc. drawn in addition to basic pay. To reiterate, the question in the present case is not about revision of pay scale but the grant of enhanced personal pay which, as clarified by the ONGC, was revised in the case of board level and below board level executives of ONGC to Rs. 2,102/- as of 1st January 1992 and merged in the personal pay granted as of that date.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 61 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India And Ors on 19 July, 2005

15. Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petition is barred by laches as it was filed more than three years after the rejection of the Petitioner‟s representation on 7th December 1999. The subsequent representations were made by relying on a subsequent OM dated 6th June 2001 and did not give rise to any fresh cause of action. Reference is also made to an order dated 15th September 2011 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6712 of 2011 (Sushil Kumar v. Union of India) to urge that a claim barred by laches ought not to be entertained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 289 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1