Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.82 seconds)K.E. Dayalan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 July, 2016
The learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly submit that the issue
in these Writ Petitions is squarely covered by the orders of the learned Single
Judge passed in W.P.Nos.15269 and 16906 of 2020 dated 27.09.2024 in the
case of K.Dhayalan and others v. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its
Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai. The relevant paragraphs are paragraphs
22, 23, 26 and 27 and the same read as follows:-
Excel Wear Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 September, 1978
23.The order passed by a learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.26009 of 2011 referred to above was confirmed by
learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1020 of 2014
dated 19.08.2014 and the same was also confirmed in SLP (C)
No.32262 of 2014 by an order dated 17.11.2017. Considering
the facts of the case on hand also, initially the benefit of pay/
post parity was claimed and was granted in favour of the
Assistant Promotee Assistant Section Officers and while
issuing the said order, it was mentioned that the similar
benefit to the Typist promotee Assistant Section Officers would
be considered separately and while issuing such separate
orders, in respect of Typist promotee Assistant Section
Officers, once again a clause was inserted saying that
consequential rectification orders in respect of the Assistant
promotee Assistant Section Officers would be issued
separately. If this rotation is to be allowed, there would be no
end for the same. One after the other, Government will be
forced to step-up/ upgrade the pay post of one cadre after the
other.
1