Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.25 seconds)
P Tejeswari vs The State Of Ap on 12 March, 2024 cites

Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union Of India on 1 November, 1957

44. At the Bar arguments were made on the doctrine of equal pay for equal work, pay parity, regularization of services with reference to various categories of employees, various organizations and precedent is cited. For instance, in Parshotam Lal Dhingra V. Union of India 12, the prime question that fell for consideration before their Lordships was 52 UDPR,J & Dr. VRKS, J W.A.No.845 of 2022 & batch whether the protections of Article 311 are available to each of the several categories of Government servants or not.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 809 - Full Document

Daily Rated Casual Labour ... vs Union Of India & Others on 27 October, 1987

Daily R C Labour, P And T Deptt V. Union of India13was a case where the issue was about daily paid casual labourers as against regular workers and the payment of minimum pay in the pay scale of regular workers along with Dearness Allowance (DA) and the scheme introduced for absorption of certain categories of casual labourers. All such aspects fell for consideration where equal pay for equal work was one aspect that was debated and decided.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 268 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Sushil Kumar Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 24 July, 2008

46. Learned standing counsel for Sarva Shiksha places strong reliance on Division Bench Judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Sunil Kumar Yadav V. State of 12 AIR 1958 SC 36 53 UDPR,J & Dr. VRKS, J W.A.No.845 of 2022 & batch Jharkhand14. That is also a case concerning Para teachers on contract employment in Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan. The writ petitioners sought for regularization of their services or sought for pay scales on par with regular school assistant teachers. The Division Bench refused to grant either of those reliefs. In the case at hand before us, the above two questions are strangers and therefore to that extent the ruling does not require any exploration. However, there is one another point that fell for consideration before the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court where the question raised was whether as a last alternative relief, those para teachers were entitled to get Minimum of Time Scale. In conclusion, the Jharkhand High Court declined to grant it. Before any assistance can be taken from this ruling one has to notice the legal framework available for Jharkhand which is enumerated at Para no.32 of the said ruling. There in that State, Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012 were passed wherein 50% of the vacant and sanctioned posts of teachers in the regular establishment of state Government have been reserved for para teachers on satisfying certain conditions. One should also notice at Para No.93, it is stated that the para teachers were taken on 13 1987 Lawsuit (SC) 768 54 UDPR,J & Dr. VRKS, J W.A.No.845 of 2022 & batch contract on payment of Honorarium only. In the case at hand before us, the standard form of contract for the year 2013 as well as standard form of contract of the year 2022 used the word "Remuneration" and not "Honorarium" (in the counters filed, it is stated that writ petitioners are paid only Honorarium but the same shall be held incorrect since the standard form of contracts that are provided in the material papers, the word used is Remuneration and not Honorarium). That is another distinguishing feature. What influenced the reasoning of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court consists of the above referred points as well as what is mentioned in the Para Nos.86 and 87 to the effect that the writ petitioners were not on a specific prayer but they were praying for one or other reliefs. It is in such circumstances, the Jharkhand High Court declined to grant Minimum of Time Scale. This ruling does not help since the legal framework and facts presented in that writ petition are significantly different from the governing G.Os and facts available on record here. Here, the case is not about pay parity of these writ petitioners as against any other similarly placed employees. The question that fell for consideration before us is only as to whether the Government orders that pronounced 14 2022 SCC Online Jhar 1586 55 UDPR,J & Dr. VRKS, J W.A.No.845 of 2022 & batch extension of revised pay scales 2022 to contractual employees in KGBV was withheld rightly or wrongly. As we have observed in the earlier paragraphs of this judgment that withholding of that benefit to them is incorrect. Therefore, the mandamus prayed must be granted. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1   2 Next