Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)
M/S Steel Authority Of India Ltd Having ... vs Manoj Kumar on 2 February, 2021 cites

Union Of India vs Tarsem Singh on 19 September, 2019

Learned senior counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and Others reported in 1995 5 SCC 628 and also in the case of Union of India & Others v. Tarsem Singh reported in 2008 8 SCC 648. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not supported the plea of financial burden by bringing any materials on record as to what would be the financial impact on the payment of the additional benefit from the date the pay anomaly arose as per the directions of the learned CAT.
Supreme Court of India Cites 80 - Cited by 3438 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Dr. P.N. Puri & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 29 January, 1996

10. Applicant moved before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata and thereafter before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ranchi being aggrieved with the fixation of the cut-off date. Their grievance was that the benefit should have been extended from the date the anomaly arose. However, the applicants failed to show as to why the fixation of cut-off date was arbitrary. Grant of pay revision or removal of anomaly is in the domain of employer as is well-settled by the decisions of the Apex Court. The principle in this regard as laid down in the case of Dr. P. N. Puri and Others versus State of U.P. and Others 1996 7 SCC 493 at para- 3 quoted hereunder: -
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy on 3 September, 1998

Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported in 1998 7 SCC 123 in support of the submission that once the learned Tribunal has condoned the delay, if any, the superior court should not interfere in exercise of the discretion of the learned Tribunal unless it is shown to be perverse. Reliance is also placed upon decision of the Patna High Court reported in 1999 2 PLJR 895 on the plea of limitation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 2563 - Full Document

The State Of Bihar vs The Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle ... on 10 May, 2019

6. During course of his submission before us, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Indrajit Sinha has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. P. N. Puri and Others versus State of U.P. and Others reported in 1996 7 SCC 493 para-3 and State of Bihar and Others versus Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger and Others)and (Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers & Assistant Engineers Association v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Others) reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1527 para-19. It is submitted that the decision of the employer intended to redress a grievance of certain employees of the executive cadre relating to their salary, as compared to non-executive employees, implemented from a cut-off date 01.01.2016 ought not to have been interfered by the learned Tribunal since the issue of pay fixation/pay revision/removal of pay anomaly is within the domain of experts and any interference by writ court in such matters is likely to have cascading effect on other related services leading to multifarious litigation and impose huge financial burden which the organization may not be able to bear. Similar grievance may start arising from other units of SAIL. The impugned directions is therefore fit to be set-aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 133 - Cited by 110 - U U Lalit - Full Document

M.R. Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 August, 1995

Learned senior counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and Others reported in 1995 5 SCC 628 and also in the case of Union of India & Others v. Tarsem Singh reported in 2008 8 SCC 648. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not supported the plea of financial burden by bringing any materials on record as to what would be the financial impact on the payment of the additional benefit from the date the pay anomaly arose as per the directions of the learned CAT.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 597 - J S Verma - Full Document

Tamilnadu Rural Development Engineers ... vs Government Of Tamilnadu And Others on 28 November, 2019

11. This proposition has been further reiterated in subsequent decisions, such as, in the case of Deputy Director General of Geological Survey of India Vrs. R. Yadaih reported in (2001) 10 SCC 563 and followed in the case of Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers & Assistant Engineers Association (supra) relied upon by the petitioner. Learned Tribunal however without holding the fixation of date as being arbitrary proceeded to quash that part of the order dated 29.12.2015 i.e. para-2(iv) while directing the respondent-SAIL to make payment of the additional amount to the affected employees from the respective date on which the anomaly occurred.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 6 - U U Lalit - Full Document
1   2 Next