Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (1.35 seconds)
Shyam Narayan Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 July, 2010 cites

K. Bir Mangal Singh vs State Of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors on 29 April, 2008

8. Writ petitions, WP(S) no. 380/03 (Dhirendra Chaturvedi and another vs. State of M.P.and others),WP(S) No.1138/03 9 (Dr.R.K.Singh vs. State of M.P. and others) and writ petition WP(S) No. 1909/03 were filed by the DAEOs who were absorbed as Assistant Directors apprehending that their cases may not be considered for the promotion to the post of Deputy Director. These writ petitions were also decided along with WP No. 17767/03 preferred by Shyam Narayan Sharma and others by a common order dated 15.01.2007 by a single Bench of this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Union Of India And Others vs S.L. Dutta And Others on 16 November, 1990

The Apex Court in S.I.Rooplal and Anr.vs. Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 594 held that equivalency of two posts are not to be judged by sole fact of equal pay. While determining the equation of two posts many factors other than "Pay" 33 will have to be taken into consideration, like the nature of duties, responsibilities, minimum qualification etc. The concept of equivalence of posts was considered by the Apex Court. There are many factors which are required to be considered such as (i) the nature and duties of a post, (ii) the responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding a post; the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged;(iii) the minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; and (iv) the salary of the post. If the earlier three criteria mentioned above are fulfilled then the fact that the salaries of the two posts are different, would not in any way make the post "not equivalent". The Apex Court S.I.Rooplal and Anr.vs. Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Ors.(supra) has held thus :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 92 - M H Kania - Full Document

P.U. Joshi & Ors., Union Of India & Ors vs The Accountant General, Ahmedabad, & ... on 19 December, 2002

In P.U.Joshi and others vs. 32 Accountant General and Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 632 it has been laid down that questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy and within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State. It is open to the State Govt. by appropriate rules to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 558 - D Raju - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs P.K. Roy & Ors on 9 November, 1967

"17. Equivalency of two posts is not judged by the sole fact of equal pay. While determining the equation of two posts many factors other than `Pay' will have to be taken into consideration, 34 like the nature of duties, responsibilities,minimum qualification etc. It is so held by this Court as far back as in the year 1968 in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. P.K. Roy and Ors,AIR 1968 SC 850, (1970) I LLJ 633 SC, [1968] 2 SCR 186. In the said judgment, this Court accepted the factors laid down by the Committee of Chief Secretaries which was constituted for settling the disputes regarding equation of posts arising out of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. These four factors are : (i) the nature and duties of a post, (ii) the responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding a post; the extent Of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged; (iii) the minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; and (iv) the salary of the post. It is seen that the salary of a post for the purpose of finding out the equivalency of posts is the last of the criterion. If the earlier three criteria mentioned above are fulfilled then the fact that the salaries of the two posts are different, would not in any way make the post `not equivalent'. In the instant case, it is not the case of the respondents that the first three criteria mentioned hereinabove are in any manner different between the two posts concerned. Therefore, it should be held that the view taken by the tribunal in the impugned order that the two posts of Sub-Inspector in the BSF and the Sub-Inspector(Executive) in Delhi Police are not equivalent merely on the ground that the two posts did not carry the same pay-scale, is necessarily to be rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 293 - V Ramaswami - Full Document
1   2 Next