Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)
C.Joseph vs The Director Of School Education on 7 September, 2023 cites

Randhir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 February, 1982

“ "17. ...The hard fact is that the petitioners were holding the posts of Professor when the revised scale became effective. In the letter dated January 20, 1971 sanctioning revised scale for the post of Professor, there is not even a whisper that the existing incumbent will be denied the benefit. In fact, it is well known that the University Grants Commission regularly recommends revised scales for every plan period for teaching posts and the revision takes note of inadequate scales sanctioned till the date of revision. The only justification offered by the respondents for denying the petitioners the benefit of the revised scale is to be found in the counter- affidavit of Dr. M.S. Swaminathan. It is contended that the newly created post in the cadre of Professor is not the same as the then existing post and that there was marginal revision in the qualifications for not the posts of Professor in the revised scale and that petitioners were not discriminated because they 8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis were given an opportunity to contest for the posts in the revised scale. The justification is too flimsy to merit any serious consideration more so in view of the fact that it is difficult to envisage a situation in such institutes, undertaking advance research in Agriculture and Animal Husbandry where persons holding Doctorate qualification and enjoying the status of the post of Professor would be governed by two different scales even though the duties, responsibilities and functions in various sister disciplines are identical. In such a situation Art. 39(d), trust assist us in reaching a fair and just conclusion. Elaborating the underlying intendment of Art. 39(d), Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Ors.(1) observed that construing Arts. 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Art. 39(d), the Court was of the view that the principle equal pay for equal work' is deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to the cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer. The case in hand is a glaring example of discriminatory treatment accorded to old experienced and highly qualified hands with an evil eye and unequal hand and the quarantee of equality in all its pervasive 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis character must enable this Court to remove discrimination and to restore fair play in action. No attempt was made to sustain the scales of pay for the post of Professor on the doctrine of classification because the classification of existing incumbents as be distinct and separate from newly recruited hand with flimsy change in essential qualification would be wholly irrational and arbitrary. The case of the petitioners for being put in the revised scale of Rs. 1100-1600 from the date on which newly created posts of Professors in sister disciplines in IVRI and other institutes were created and filled in revised scale is unanswerable and must be conceded."
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 521 - O C Reddy - Full Document

R.Padma Sheela Rani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 December, 2017

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 18.03.2020 passed by the first respondent in Mu.Mu.No.020680/D1/E2/2019 and directing the respondents to upgrade the post of Secondary Grade Teacher, held by the petitioner, as B.T. Assistant (Tamil) with effect from 01.06.2022, as per G.O.Ms.No.79 School Education Department dated 14.06.2002 with all consequential monetary benefits, in the light of decision rendered by this Court 2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis in the case of R.Padma Sheela Rani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, and others in W.P.(MD).No.1664 of 2005, dated 02.11.2006 and G.O.(3d).No.61 School Education (P1) Department dated 20.04.2012.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - P D Audikesavalu - Full Document

M.Mary Jacklin Pushpa vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 February, 2019

10. This Court, in W.P.No.26483 of 2005 by an order dated 16.04.2014, already held that for those who were appointed prior to G.O.Ms.No.79 dated 14.06.2002, the School should get approval from the Government prior to the appointment of those teachers as per the said G.O. Therefore, the rejection of the request made by the petitioners is totally arbitrary and erroneous. This Court, in W.P.(MD) No.14870 of 2010 in the case of M.Mary Jacklin Pushpa Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, already held that it is crystal clear that the law on this subject has been well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that though 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis equal pay for equal work is not expressly stated in any of the provision of the Fundamental Rights, it falls within the ambit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in view of Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India and the same is enforceable by the Courts. Those teachers who were appointed after 14.06.2002 and the petitioners are equal in all respects. Therefore, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work should be applied in the case on hand. When the teachers, who were appointed on or after 14.06.2002 are equal in all respects, the petitioners are also entitled for the same scale of pay for the post of BT Assistant with effect from 01.06.2006. Whereas, in the case on hand, all the petitioners were appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher even prior to G.O.Ms.No.79 dated 14.06.2002. Therefore, all the teachers are entitled to be regularised when the date of G.O.Ms.No.79 dated 14.06.2002 i.e., from 01.06.2002.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - R Mahadevan - Full Document
1