Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.72 seconds)
Chittaranjan Sahu & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 January, 2019 cites

Union Of India & Anr vs P.K. Roy & Ors on 9 November, 1967

In the said judgment, this Court accepted the factors laid down by the Committee of Chief Secretaries which was constituted for settling the disputes regarding equation of posts arising out of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. These four factors are : (i) the nature and duties of a post, (ii) the responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding a post; the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged; (iii) the minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; and (iv) the salary of the post. It is seen that the salary of a post for the purpose of finding out the equivalency of posts is the last of the criterion. If the earlier three criteria mentioned above are fulfilled then the fact that the salaries of the two posts are different, would not in any way make the post `not equivalent'. In the instant case, it is not the case of the respondents that the first three criteria mentioned hereinabove are in any manner different between the two posts concerned. Therefore, it should be held that the view taken by the tribunal in the impugned order that the two posts of Sub-Inspector in the BSF and the Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police are not equivalent merely on the ground that the two posts did not carry the same pay-scale, is necessarily to be rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 293 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Vice-Chancellor, L.N. Mithila ... vs Dayanand Jha on 25 April, 1986

We are further supported in this view of ours by another judgment of this Court in the case of Vice-Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University v. Dayanand Jha. [1986] 3 SCC 7 Wherein at para 8 of the judgment, this Court held: "Learned counsel for the respondent is therefore right in contending that equivalency of the pay scale is not the Only factor in judging whether the post of Principal and that of Reader are equivalent posts. We are inclined to agree with him that the real criterion to adopt is whether they could be regarded of equal status and responsibility xxx The true criterion for equivalence is the status and the nature and responsibility of the duties attached to the two posts, xxx"
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 92 - Full Document

Dhiraj Ranjan vs Union Of India And Ors. on 3 August, 2015

21. The Court took note of the Recruitment Rules 2012 in respect of the relevant entry for SI (JAM) and observed that since the Petitioner was holding the post of SI on deputation, BSF would not be justified in restructuring the "Re-employment" of such deputationist to the post of ASI. The Court was thus persuaded on account of the fact that since Dhiraj Ranjan (supra) was initially holding the post of SI on deputation, he ought to be re-employed as SI. The other factor which prevailed upon the Court to take such a view, was perhaps for the reason that the Petitioner had the necessary experience and expertise for ten years and was drawing higher pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- w.e.f 1st October 2012 itself. This is evident from the following observation in the said judgment which reads as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - S R Bhat - Full Document
1