Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.28 seconds)
Hari Dutt Sharma And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 26 March, 2013 cites

State Of Punjab Through The Secretary To ... vs Shri Lakh Ram Saini Formerly ... on 20 January, 1992

In State of Punjab Vs. Acharya Lekh Ram 1990 1 SCT 267, Lekh Ram had been appointed as a Lecturer and approved as such. A transfer to a school was not tenable and in the same manner in this case, any of the persons, who had been appointed directly into the institute or persons brought otherwise than from school cadre shall not hereafter be transferred out to any school. It is reiterated that repatriation will apply only to persons, who had been brought from any school from a school cadre.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

The State Of Haryana And Another vs Kamal Singh Saharwat And Others on 21 September, 1999

17. After having in-depth examination of the matter we are of the opinion that the contentions of the respondents have to LPA No. 76 of 2012 12 prevail and the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is without blemish. It is rightly held by the learned Single Judge that merely because the appellants were made to teach in a college, would not mean that they are to be equated with the college lecturers and the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would apply. These appellants were appointed in a school cadre as per the qualifications which are prescribed for school teachers. The contention of the respondents that the essential qualification of passing NET Exam is not possessed by the appellants, could not be disputed by the appellants. That apart merely because the appellants have higher qualification would not mean that they automatically become entitled to the pay scales of higher post than the post to which they are appointed. Learned Single Judge has pointed out that the Supreme Court in case State of Haryana Vs. Kamal Singh Saharawat 1999(8) SCC 44 has held that there is no law to support such a proposition that a school teacher could not be given lecturer's scale in a school, merely because he has obtained lecturer's educational qualification, if he had not been appointed to the lecturer's post.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 40 - Full Document

State Of Haryana & Anr vs Ram Chander & Anr on 9 May, 1997

In State of Haryana Vs. Ram Chander 1997 (5) SCC 253, the issue was whether teachers teaching in different institutes, where the courses were the same and the students were also required to appear in the same type of examinations, could be denied parity in LPA No. 76 of 2012 13 pay scales in different educational institutes by the only fact that there did exist difference in educational qualification for appointments in different institutes. This, the Court held would surely make a vital difference to deny parity but in that case, the State Government itself had effaced different treatment, while revising the pay scales of its employees on the basis of recommendations of Pay Commission. The justification for such a law is obviously the principle of 'equal pay, equal work' enshrined in the Constitution. This is seen as a constitutional mandate also in some cases where persons doing the same work have secured parity in scales when they were discriminated against, by judicial interventions. An important exception that has come about is, when the Courts do not find themselves equipped with technical expertise to assess the equation of jobs and leave it to expert bodies like Pay Commission to resolve issues wherever anomalies are pointed out. There have been also occasions where the differences in qualifications are found to be justifying the breach from the rule of equal pay for equal work. The obvious other examples that could be cited for making deviation would be instances of persons doing the same work but having different years of experience and there, the seniority rule and the fitment of particular scale depending on seniority would themselves be grounds for pay differentials.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 98 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors vs Jagjiwan Ram And Ors on 12 February, 2009

The judgment in Satbir Singh was not approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab Sate Electricity Board and others vs. Jagjiwan Ram and others (2009) 3 SCC 661 in so far as the law laid down in the said judgment concerned LPA No. 76 of 2012 14 treating the work-charged service as relevant for reckoning the total number of years for grant of ACP Scales. However, other principles stated in the judgment could still be restated, for it is a well known axiom that when there is a final pronouncement of law on the subject, the said principle shall be applied in every other like instances by the State. The parties similarly situated should not be forced to come to Court to apply the very same established principle.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 133 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Rampalit Vyakaran Acharya And Ors. vs Punjab University, Chandigarh And Anr. on 22 September, 1975

The petitioners have relied on the judgment in Rampalit Vyakaran Acharya and others Vs. Panjab University, Chandigarh and another AIR 1975 SC 2478 that held that after Vishvesharan institute of Sanskrit and Indological Studies in Hoshiarpur were taken over by the Panjab University, the persons who had obtained degrees of Acharya appointed in the teaching LPA No. 76 of 2012 15 department of the institutes as Pandits need not have any MA degree in order to be entitled to scales of Lecturers and after the services had been taken over by the University, they were entitled to scales of pay appertaining to Acharayas and as available to them during the relevant period. This was in the context of an admitted withdrawal of benefit by the fact and they did not hold MA degrees in Sanskrit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 9 - P K Goswami - Full Document
1