Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.57 seconds)Article 229 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
All India Judges' Association And ... vs Union Of India And Others on 24 August, 1993
3. The petitioners pleaded in the petition that they are performing
the similar work rather onerous work in comparison to the employees
who are working on Class IV and III posts in the District Courts in the
State of Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter called as 'the employees of
Subordinate Courts). The pay scale of subordinate Courts' employees
have been revised by the State of Madhya Pradesh in accordance with
the directions issued by the Apex Court in the matter of All India
Judges Association and others vs. Union of India and others (Shetty
Commission). The employees of subordinate Courts were also granted
benefit of additional one increment, up-gradation of pay-scale and
certain other allowances. The State Government accepted
recommendations of Shetty Commission. However, the same benefits
have been denied to the petitioners, which has resulted into anomaly
3
WP No.7058 of 2016
in the pay and allowances. The petitioners made a representation to
this effect to the High Court and the Committee constituted by the
High Court forwarded the recommendations to the State Government.
U.T.Administration,Chandigarh & Ors vs Manju Mathur & Anr on 14 January, 2011
42.14. For parity in pay-scales, under the principle of
'equal pay for equal work', equation in the nature of duties, is
of paramount importance. If the principal nature of duties of
one post is teaching, whereas that of the other is non-teaching,
the principle would not be applicable. If the dominant nature of
duties of one post is of control and management, whereas the
subject post has no such duties, the principle would not be
applicable. Likewise, if the central nature of duties of one post
is of quality control, whereas the subject post has minimal
duties of quality control, the principle would not be applicable
(see - Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh v. Manju
Mathur).
State Of U.P. & Anr vs C.L. Agrawal & Anr on 2 May, 1997
However, keeping in view the fact that the matter of pay scale and
allowances of the employees of the High Court is pending before the
State Government since 27.6.2015, the respondents are directed to
finalize the same within a period of four months. While considering
the recommendations, the State shall take into consideration the
principle of law laid down by the apex Court in the case of State of
U.P. and another (supra).
State Of Punjab And Ors vs Jagjit Singh And Ors on 26 October, 2016
"42. All the judgments noticed in paragraphs 7 to 24
hereinabove, pertain to employees engaged on regular basis,
who were claiming higher wages, under the principle of 'equal
pay for equal work'. The claim raised by such employees was
premised on the ground, that the duties and responsibilities
rendered by them, were against the same post for which a
higher pay-scale was being allowed, in other Government
departments. Or alternatively, their duties and responsibilities
were the same, as of other posts with different designations, but
they were placed in a lower scale. Having been painstakingly
taken through the parameters laid down by this Court, wherein
the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' was invoked and
considered, it would be just and appropriate, to delineate the
parameters laid down by this Court. In recording the said
parameters, we have also adverted to some other judgments
pertaining to temporary employees (also dealt with, in the
instant judgment), wherein also, this Court had the occasion to
express the legal position with reference to the principle of
17
WP No.7058 of 2016
'equal pay for equal work'. Our consideration, has led us to
the following deductions:
Secretary, Finance Department And Ors vs West Bengal Registration Service ... on 20 February, 1992
42.17. Where there is no comparison between one set of
employees of one organization, and another set of employees of
a different organization, there can be no question of equation of
pay-scales, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work',
even if two organizations have a common employer. Likewise, if
the management and control of two organizations, is with
different entities, which are independent of one another, the
principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would not apply (see -
the S.C. Chandra case, and the National Aluminum Company
Limited case)."
State Of U.P. & Ors vs J.P. Chaurasia & Ors on 27 September, 1988
42.7. Persons performing the same or similar
functions, duties and responsibilities, can also be placed in
different pay-scales. Such as - 'selection grade', in the same
post. But this difference must emerge out of a legitimate
foundation, such as - merit, or seniority, or some other
relevant criteria (see - State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia).
Government Of West Bengal vs Tarun K. Roy And Ors on 18 November, 2003
42.8. If the qualifications for recruitment to the
subject post vis-a- vis the reference post are different, it may
be difficult to conclude, that the duties and responsibilities
of the posts are qualitatively similar or comparable (see -
the Mewa Ram Kanojia case5, and Government of W.B. v.
Tarun K. Roy). In such a cause, the principle of 'equal pay
for equal work', cannot be invoked.
Union Of India And Others vs Pradip Kumar Dey on 9 November, 2000
42.9. The reference post, with which parity is
claimed, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal
19
WP No.7058 of 2016
work', has to be at the same hierarchy in the service,
as the subject post. Pay-scales of posts may be
different, if the hierarchy of the posts in question, and
their channels of promotion, are different. Even if the
duties and responsibilities are same, parity would not
be permissible, as against a superior post, such as a
promotional post (see - Union of India v. Pradip
Kumar Dey, and the Hukum Chand Gupta case).