Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (1.26 seconds)
South Delhi Municipal Corporation vs Ram Kishan & Anr on 4 July, 2024 cites

Secy. - Cum- Chief Engineer, Chandigarh vs Hari Om Sharma & Ors on 29 April, 1998

In Secy.- cum-Chief Engineer v. Hari Om Sharma, (1998) 5 SCC 87 the employee was promoted as a stop-gap arrangement as Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 2990/2017 & 32 other connected matters Page 65 of 77 Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:08.07.2024 17:18:19 Junior Engineer I and he had given an undertaking that on the basis of stop-gap arrangement, he would not claim any benefit pertaining to that post. It was held that the Government in its capacity as a model employer cannot be permitted to raise such an argument, and the undertaking which is said to constitute an agreement between the parties cannot be enforced at law. An agreement that if a person is promoted to the higher post or put to officiate on that post or, as in the instant case, a stop-gap arrangement is made to place him on the higher post, he would not claim higher salary or other attendant benefits would be contrary to law and also against public policy. It would, therefore, be unenforceable in view of Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 184 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Sh.Sultan Singh & Ors. on 20 April, 2011

99. Therefore, extending the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Sultan Singh (Supra) in terms of the judgment titled Anand Kumar Srivastava (Supra), this Court is of the considered view that although the respondent workman is not entitled to the post of Garden Chaudhary w.e.f. 1st April, 1991 in light of the observations made in issue no. 1, however, he is duly entitled to the pay scale attached to the said post for the period for which he performed the duties of Garden Chaudhary in officiating/ad hoc position, as per the order (Ex. WW 1/1) of the Deputy Director (Horticulture). The petitioner department is liable to pay the workman in terms of the prescribed pay scale attached to the post of Garden Chaudhary.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 11 - A Kumar - Full Document

Selvaraj vs Lt. Governor Of Island, Port Blair And ... on 16 March, 1998

25. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not produced any guidelines, circulars to show that if the work is available and the Garden Chaudharies are not appointed, then who is competent to appoint Malies/Chowkidars on ad hoc basis as Garden Chaudharies and to take from them the work of Garden Chaudharies. If on account of exigencies of the work the head of the department asks Malies/Chowkidars to do the work of Garden Chaudharies which is now admitted by the petitioner in the present writ petition impugning the order of the Tribunal then why the difference of pay of Mali/chowkidar and Garden Chaudhary be not be paid to them, has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. Applying the principle of quantum meruit as was held by the Supreme Court in case of Selvaraj (Supra) the petitioner has to pay to the respondents emoluments available in the higher pay scale during the time they actually worked on the post of Garden Chaudhary in the facts and circumstances.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 133 - Full Document

Smt. P. Grover vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 18 August, 1983

1983 SCC (L&S) 525 : AIR 1983 SC 1060] , we think it apt to appreciate the ratio laid down in the said case. A two- Judge Bench of this Court was dealing with the fact situation wherein keeping in view the policy decision, the appellant therein was promoted as an acting District Education Officer. The order of promotion contained a superadded condition that she would draw her own pay scale which apparently meant she would continue to draw her salary on Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 2990/2017 & 32 other connected matters Page 54 of 77 Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:08.07.2024 17:18:19 her pay scale prior to promotion. The claim was put forth by the appellant that she was entitled to the pay of District Education Officer and there was no justification for denying the same to her. A writ petition was filed before the High Court and the State filed the counter-affidavit contending, inter alia, that she was promoted to the post of acting District Education Officer as there was no Class I post and hence, she was not entitled to be paid the salary of District Education Officer. Appreciating the fact situation, the Court held : (SCC p. 293, para 3) "3. ... We are unable to understand the reason given in the counter-affidavit. She was promoted to the post of District Education Officer, a Class I post, on an acting basis. Our attention was not invited to any rule which provides that promotion on an acting basis would not entitle the officer promoted to the pay of the post. In the absence of any rule justifying such refusal to pay to an officer promoted to a higher post the salary of such higher post (the validity of such a rule would be doubtful if it existed), we must hold that Smt Grover is entitled to be paid the salary of a District Education Officer from the date she was promoted to the post, that is, 19-7-1976, until she retired from service on 31-8-1980."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 118 - O C Reddy - Full Document

A.Francis vs Mgt.Of Metropolitan Tran.Corp.Ltd on 13 August, 2014

As far as the authority in A. Francis [A. Francis v. Metropolitan Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 2990/2017 & 32 other connected matters Page 56 of 77 Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:08.07.2024 17:18:19 Transport Corpn. Ltd., (2014) 13 SCC 283 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 376] is concerned, we would like to observe that the said case has to rest on its own facts. We may clearly state that by an incorporation in the order or merely by giving an undertaking in all circumstances would not debar an employee to claim the benefits of the officiating position.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 7 - R Gogoi - Full Document
1   2 3 Next