Sikander Pal Jain vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 19 July, 1984
Facts are being taken primarily from
CWP No. 19547 of 2011 titled as Jai Pal vs. State of Haryana and
others.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)Labh Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana & Others ... on 19 July, 2010
Subsequently, a Single Bench judgment of this Court in
Labh Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others,
1995 (1) Recent Service Judgments 345 followed the
directions issued in Ram Kishan's case (supra).
B.N. Saxena vs New Delhi Municipal Committee And ... on 25 July, 1990
Thereafter, relying upon the judgments of the Supreme
Court in the cases of B.N.Saxena vs. New Delhi Municipal
Committee and others, (1990) 4 SCC 205 and Madhavrao Dadwa
vs. Union of India, 1998 (4) RSJ, has held that the petitioners had
the requisite qualifications to hold the post at the time of their
recruitment and any qualification prescribed subsequently will not
affect the right to hold the post or their entitlement for the revised pay
scales on the ground that they do not possess the qualification
prescribed later on. It was further held that the interpretation which
can be placed with Item No. 40 of Pay Revision Rules of 1986 is that
the petitioners, if working on technical posts, cannot be deprived of
the revised pay scale of `1200-2040/- either on the ground that they
are non-Matric or that they are ITI or not or even they are having
trade certificate of a different trade.
Chandraprakash Madhavrao Dadwa & Ors. vs Union Of India & Others on 25 September, 1998
Thereafter, relying upon the judgments of the Supreme
Court in the cases of B.N.Saxena vs. New Delhi Municipal
Committee and others, (1990) 4 SCC 205 and Madhavrao Dadwa
vs. Union of India, 1998 (4) RSJ, has held that the petitioners had
the requisite qualifications to hold the post at the time of their
recruitment and any qualification prescribed subsequently will not
affect the right to hold the post or their entitlement for the revised pay
scales on the ground that they do not possess the qualification
prescribed later on. It was further held that the interpretation which
can be placed with Item No. 40 of Pay Revision Rules of 1986 is that
the petitioners, if working on technical posts, cannot be deprived of
the revised pay scale of `1200-2040/- either on the ground that they
are non-Matric or that they are ITI or not or even they are having
trade certificate of a different trade.
Raghunath, Ram Kishan & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 November, 2002
11. After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties and having given our thoughtful consideration to
the entire controversy, we find that the present petition
deserves to succeed. It is not in dispute that the
petitioners did possess the qualifications with ITI
certificates and it was only on the basis of the aforesaid
qualifications that they were actually appointed in the
workshop run by the Haryana Roadways. The judgment
of the Division Bench in Ram Kishan's case (supra)
wherein a direction had been issued to the State of
Haryana to refix the pay of the petitioners according to
CWP No. 19547 of 2011 and other connected cases 20
their qualification the matriculation with ITI certificates
supports the contention raised by the petitioners.
Raj Karan vs State Of Haryana on 3 February, 2011
The aforesaid judgment was followed by another Division
Bench of this Court in case of Raj Karan Vs. State of
Haryana reported as 2003(1)RSJ 119, wherein following
observations have been made:-
Gurdev Singh & Others vs State Of Haryana And Others ... on 18 January, 2010
Apart from a Division Bench judgment of this Court in
CWP No. 2032 of 2000 titled as Attar Singh and others vs. State of
Haryana and others, decided on 17.09.2002, wherein it has been
held that even if the statutory Rules, on the date of coming into force
of these circulars, did not prescribe the minimum qualifications for
the said post, if an employee possessed the said qualifications, he
was entitled to the technical pay scale of ` 1200-2040 w.e.f.
01.05.1990, reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of this
Court in CWP No. 18754 of 1991 titled as Gurdev Singh and others
vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 18.01.2010, wherein it
was held that if the petitioners had the requisite qualifications to hold
the post at the time of their recruitment, any qualifications prescribed
subsequently will not affect their right to hold the post or their
entitlement for the revised pay scale on the ground that they did not
possess the qualifications prescribed later on. On this basis, it has
been contended that the petitioner, at the stage of initial appointment
as Store-Man, fulfilled the then prescribed qualifications and merely
because now ITI certificate as been prescribed as a qualification for
CWP No. 19547 of 2011 and other connected cases 6
appointment to the post of Store-Man would not disentitle him of the
pay scale of ` 1200-2040, which has been granted to his juniors only
on the ground that they possess ITI certificate/diploma qualifications.
Accordingly, it has been prayed that the petitioner be held entitled to
the technical pay scale of ` 1200-2040 which has been granted to
his junior and similarly placed employees in the Transport
Department.
Attar Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 30 August, 2010
In the light of the Division Bench judgment passed
by this Court in the case of Attar Singh (supra) petitioners cannot be
denied the higher technical pay scale w.e.f. 01.05.1990 or from the
date persons junior to them have been granted the said pay scale.
Gurdev Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 30 July, 2008
"xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
From the reading of Pay Rules, 1986 Item No.
40 it appears that the revised pay scale has been
prescribed for various technical posts in which the
minimum educational qualification prescribed is matric
CWP No. 19547 of 2011 and other connected cases 12
with ITI, meaning thereby that any person, who is working
on any technical post for which the minimum qualification
prescribed is matric with ITI certificate whether he is in
lower pay scale of 750-940 or various higher pay scales
referred to above including Rs. 950-1500/- is to be placed
in the revised pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040/-. The rule
does not prescribe that only an employee working on the
technical post possessing the qualification of matric with
ITI is to be granted the revised pay scale. Pay scales of
the posts and grades have been revised and not of the
employees with higher qualifications. It is not in dispute
that all the petitioners are working on one or the other
technical posts and are in the different pay scales
amongst five unrevised pay scales and are working since
last 20 to 30 years. The endorsement under the revised
pay scale further strengthens the argument that the future
recruitment of the non-matric has been stopped, its
natural corollary is that in past non-matrics have been
recruited against the posts for which the qualification
prescribed is matric with ITI.
Ram Phal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 9 July, 2009
By this order, I propose to dispose of three writ petitions
i.e. CWP No. 19547 of 2011 titled as Jai Pal vs. State of Haryana
and others, CWP No. 11452 of 2011 titled as Rajpal and another
vs. State of Haryana and others and CWP No. 3355 of 2012 titled
as Ram Phal and others vs. State of Haryana and others, wherein
common questions of fact and law are involved and the cases have
been taken up for hearing with the consent of the counsel for the
parties for disposal together.