Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Supreme Court Employees' Welfare ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 24 July, 1989
45. We do not find any thing, which may be in conflict and in excess of the direction contained in the Division Bench judgment in the case of
Ramji Yadav and Anr. (supra). Supplementary report, dated April 13, 1998, also cannot be assailed on the ground suggested by the learned Addl. Advocate General.
Section Officer Brotherhood And Anr. vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. on 22 November, 1999
65. Reference is also made to the case of Section Officer Brotherhood and Anr. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and
Ors., (2000) 1 UPLBEC 371. Relevant Paragraphs 17 and 34 are reproduced :
Randhir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 February, 1982
69. The petitioners, however, attempted to place reliance upon the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India and
Ors., AIR 1982 SC 879 (Paras 6, 8 and 9).
P. Savita S/O Shri P.L. Savita vs Union Of India, Ministry Of Defence ... on 1 May, 1985
70. Petitioner them cited judgment of P. Savita and Ors. v. Union of India and
Ors., AIR 1985 SC 1124. Paragraphs 1 and 11 of this judgment are quoted below:
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of U.P. & Ors vs J.P. Chaurasia & Ors on 27 September, 1988
53. As noted earlier, in the case of J.P. Chaurasia (supra), contention of the Bench Secretaries (both Grade I and II) was that two pay scales in one cadre of Bench Secretaries (who performed similar duties) was not legal. But this plea did not find favour with the Apex Court which held that diversification in pay scale was justifiable in law. The Supreme Court has nowhere laid down that a Bench Secretaries, who is placed in lower scale, but doning similar work, should not be allowed the pay scale of a comparable post (i.e., Court Masters in Delhi High Court).
Article 229 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The State Of Maharashtra vs Indian Medical Association & Ors on 6 December, 2001
The said judgment is referred to in the aforesaid case of State of Maharashtra (supra) and, therefore, no useful purpose will be served to deal with it separately.