Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.25 seconds)State Of U.P. & Ors vs U.P. Sales Tax Officers Gr.Ii Assn on 16 April, 2003
24. The Supreme Court also held that a judicial review over expert bodies such as Pay Commission was not normally subject to judicial review vide its judgment in State of U.P. v. U.P. Sales Tax Officers Grade II Association, (2003) 6 SCC 250, In paragraph No.11, it was held as follows:
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Government Of West Bengal vs Tarun K. Roy And Ors on 18 November, 2003
36. It is well settled by the Supreme Court that only because the nature of work is the same, irrespective of educational qualification, mode of appointment, experience and other relevant factors, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply vide Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy.
Union Of India And Others vs Pradip Kumar Dey on 9 November, 2000
Granting of pay parity by the court may result in a cascading effect and reaction which can have adverse consequences vide Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dey.(emphasis added)"
M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension ... vs State Of M.P. And Anr on 5 April, 2004
22. The Supreme Court has held that the State Government by virtue of its power under Article309 of the Constitution can make an unilaterally conditions of service or amend the conditions of service and it can also be given retrospective effect and it is upto the State Government to accept or reject the Pay Commission's recommendations vide judgment in M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Assn. v. State of M.P., (2004) 4 SCC 646. In paragraph No.13, it was observed as follows:
Dy. Dir. Gen. Of Geo. Survey Of India And ... vs R. Yadaiah And Ors. on 28 April, 2000
23. The Supreme Court also took exception to the High Court's and Administrative Tribunal's going into the question of fitment of officers in a particular grade or pay scales attached thereto vide its judgment in Dy. Director General of Geological Survey of India v. R. Yadaiah, (2001) 10 SCC 563, In paragraph No.2, it was observed as follows:
K. T. Veerappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 12 April, 2006
25. The Supreme Court in K.T. Veerappa v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 9 SCC 406, has held that the fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties are the functions of the executive and the scope of judicial review of administrative decision is very limited. In paragraph No.13, it was observed as follows :
Chandrashekar A.K vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 7 November, 2008
27. The Supreme Court also held vide its judgment in Chandrashekar A.K. v. State of Kerala, (2009) 1 SCC 73, that whether the scale of pay should be revised or not is the matter of policy decision of the State and no legal right exists in a person to get the revised scale of pay implemented. In paragraph 14, it was observed as follows:
State Of West Bengal vs Subhas Kumar Chatterjee & Ors on 17 August, 2010
28. The Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Subhas Kumar Chatterjee, (2010) 11 SCC 694, once again reaffirmed its earlier decisions and also condemned the Tribunal's action in interfering with the administrative authorities' power. In paragraph Nos.14 and 21, it was observed as follows: