Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.36 seconds)
Director General Icar New Delhi And Ors vs Workmen And Ors on 30 August, 2012 cites

State Of Haryaka And Anr vs Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal ... on 10 July, 2002

There is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle as settled in State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. [(2002) 6 SCC 72: 2002 SCC (L&S) 822] that fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is the function of the executive and the scope of judicial review of administrative decision in this regard is very limited. However, it is also equally well settled that the courts should interfere with administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be W.P. (c) No. 1417 of 1991 Page 11 of 17 unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors."
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 166 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Ors vs J.P. Chaurasia & Ors on 27 September, 1988

In the case of State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia (1989) ILLJ 309 a SC, it was pointed out that whether two posts are equal or should carry the equal pay, depends on several factors. It does not depend just upon either the nature of work or the volume of work done. Primarily it requires among others, evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. The quantity of work may be the same but the quality may be different. That cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties. It must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission, who would be the best judges, to evaluate the nature of duty, responsibility and all relevant factors.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 372 - K J Shetty - Full Document

Union Of India vs Arun Jyoti Kundu & Ors on 27 August, 2007

"14. This Court time and again cautioned that the court should avoid giving a declaration granting a particular scale of pay and compel the Government to implement the same. Equation of W.P. (c) No. 1417 of 1991 Page 10 of 17 posts and equation of salaries is a matter which is best left to an expert body. Fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. Even the recommendations of the Pay Commissions are subject to acceptance or rejection, the courts cannot compel the State to accept the recommendations of the Pay Commissions though it is an expert body. The State in its wisdom and in furtherance of its valid policy may or may not accept the recommendations of the Pay Commission. (See Union of India v. Arun Jyoti Kundu [(2007) 7 SCC 472: (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 695] and State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. [(2002) 6 SCC 72: 2002 SCC (L&S) 822]) It is no doubt true, the constitutional courts clothed with power of judicial review have jurisdiction and the aggrieved employees have remedy only if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction while fixing the pay scale for a given post."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 64 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

Bangalore Water-Supply & Sewerage ... vs R. Rajappa & Others on 21 February, 1978

In the present petition though the learned counsel for the Petitioner has pressed that it is not an industry however, in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548 there can be no dispute that the Petitioner is an industry. Thus the main point of challenge in the present petition is regarding the two directions issued by the learned Tribunal namely directing the merger of the two grades and grant of Five Yearly Assessment Promotion to the members of Respondent No.1. Byelaw 21 framed under Rule 40 of the Rules of Petitioner‟s Society lays down the categorization of personnel into Scientific, Technical, Administrative, Auxiliary and Supporting Staff. Byelaw 30(a) framed under Rule 40 of the Petitioner‟s society states that except in regard to matters for which specific provisions have been made in the Rules, Byelaws, Regulations or Orders, the Service and Financial Rules framed by the Government of India would apply mutatis mutandis to the employees of the society. The governing body has been given the powers to relax the requirement of any rule of earlier sub-rule to such an extent and subject to such conditions as may be considered necessary. The supporting staff, who are Class-IV employees, prior to the implementation of the 6th Pay Commission were recruited with the qualification of middle class depending upon the nature of job as per the ICAR Rules and Byelaws. The supporting staff is recruited to assist the Scientific, Technical and Administrative staff physically. The recruitment is W.P. (c) No. 1417 of 1991 Page 4 of 17 made at the lowest level, that is, at Grade-I level and thereafter the vacancies in the Grade-II, III and IV are to be filled up by promotion on availability of vacancies and as per the roster point. There is no direct recruitment in Grade-II to IV. The Recruitment Rules of the Administrative and Supporting staff are different. The scheme of Five Yearly Assessment Promotion is applicable to Scientific and Technical staff only. The nature of duties is entirely different from that of scientific and technical staff and they could not be considered at par. The classification/categorization of supporting staff is at par with the Government of India and is in consonance with the 3rd, 4th and 5th Pay Commissions. Vide 6th Pay Commission all group „D‟ posts have been upgraded to Group-„C‟ category w.e.f. 1st January, 2006 and nomenclatured as Skilled Supporting Staff.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 985 - M H Beg - Full Document

State Of W.B vs Hari Narayan Bhowal on 16 March, 1994

13. Thus it has to be seen whether there is any arbitrariness and illegality in the action of the Petitioner failing which the Courts cannot interfere in the grant of pay scales or merger thereof. In the present case the members of Respondent No. 1 are claiming merger of the two grades in view of the fact that similar grades are available in CPWD. As held in the catena of decisions that the pay parity or parity in the pay scales can be claimed if the employer is the same and with the same class of employees. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Hari Narayan Bhowal and Ors. 1994 (4) SCC 78 observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 65 - N P Singh - Full Document

Shyam Babu Verma vs Union Of India on 8 February, 1994

Recently, in the case of Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of W.P. (c) No. 1417 of 1991 Page 14 of 17 India (1994) ILLJ 815 SC, a claim for equal pay by a group of Pharmacists was rejected saying that the classification made by a body of experts after full study and analysis of the work, should not be disturbed except for strong reasons which indicate the classification made was unreasonable."
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 850 - N P Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next