Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.33 seconds)
Satya Devi vs State Of H. P. And Others on 28 May, 2024 cites

Baldev Singh And Ors. vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors. on 10 April, 1987

In the reply filed by the State, reliance is again placed on judgment in Baldev (7 Supra). It is contended that merely categorizing of persons engaged on different dates on the basis of applicability of Rules prevailing at the time of their engagement does not amount to arbitrariness, discrimination or unfairness in any manner and such categorization cannot be said to be one homogeneous as the amended rule/law will have to take effect from the date of its notification. Categorization on the basis of date of engagement cannot be termed discriminatory for the reason that the concept of seniority and promotion is also based on the same principle i.e, the date of appointment. Further, persons engaged on different dates are not alike for the ::: Downloaded on - 28/05/2024 20:38:19 :::CIS 32 purpose of service benefits as they may be engaged under different service conditions and date of engagement is always vital in case of other service benefits. Therefore the plea of petitioner w.r.t. discrimination is not .
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 639 - R B Misra - Full Document

B. Prabhakar Rao & Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Etc.Etc on 19 August, 1985

108. Like in the decision in B.Prabhakar Rao ( 14 supra), in the instant case too, after the age of superannuation was reduced from 60 to 58 years vide notification dt.10.5.2001 , it appears that the State Government realised that they had taken a step in the wrong direction and that serious wrong and grave injustice had been done to their employees. It therefore sought to reverse the said decision in the notification dt.21.2.2018 by again increasing the age of superannuation to 60 years, but while doing so, it gave such benefit only to such of class-IV employees who had been engaged on part time /daily wage basis prior to 10.5.2001 and regularized on or after 10.5.2001. It excluded the employees who had been engaged on part time /daily wage basis / appointed after 10.5.2001 and is insisting that they retire on attaining the age of 58 years.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 157 - O C Reddy - Full Document
1   2 Next