Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (1.47 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Daya Lal & Ors on 13 January, 2011
“16.In State of Rajasthan vs. Daya Lal [State of
http://www.judis.nic.in
29
Rajasthan v. Daya Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 429 : (2011) 1
SCC (L&S) 340] , this Court has considered the scope
of regularisation of irregular or part-time
appointments in all possible eventualities and this
Court clearly laid down that part-time employees are
not entitled to seek regularisation as they do not work
against any sanctioned posts. It was also held that
part-time employees in government-run institutions
can in no case claim parity in salary with regular
employees of the Government on the principle of
equal pay for equal work. Relevant excerpt from the
said judgment is as under: (SCC pp. 435-36, para 12)
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
(v) Part-time temporary employees in
government- run institutions cannot claim parity in
salary with regular employees of the Government on
the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can
employees in private employment, even if serving full-
time, seek parity in salary with government
employees. The right to claim a particular salary
against the State must arise under a contract or under
a statute.[See State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3)
[State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :
State Of Punjab vs Jagdip Singh & Ors on 19 September, 1963
In this
http://www.judis.nic.in
11
context,we have also to bear in mind the exposition of
law by a Constitution Bench in Stateof Punjab v.
Jagdip Singh and Ors. MANU/SC/0273/1963 :
2Ec.To Govt.,School Education ... vs Thiru R.Govindaswamy & Ors on 21 February, 2014
5.The said legal principles were once again reiterated by the
Two Judges Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the
case of Secretary to Government, School Education
Department, Chennai Vs. R.Govindaswamy and others
http://www.judis.nic.in
28
reported in (2014) 4 Supreme Court Cases 769, held that:
State Of Karnataka And Anr vs H. Ganesh Kamath Etc. Etc on 31 March, 1983
(1979)IILL J209SC on the other, which has been
brought out in one of the judgments under appeal of
Karnataka High Court in State of Karnataka v. H.
Ganesh Rao decided on 1.6.2000, reported in2001
(4) KLJ 466, learned Additional Solicitor General
http://www.judis.nic.in
8
urged that the scheme for regularization is repugnant
to Articles 16(4), 309, 320 and 335 of the
Constitution of India and, therefore, these cases are
required to be heard by a Bench of Five learned
Judges (Constitution Bench).
Court In The Case Of Secretary, State Of ... vs . Uma on 9 April, 2015
(v) Part-time temporary employees in
government- run institutions cannot claim parity in
salary with regular employees of the Government on
the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can
employees in private employment, even if serving full-
time, seek parity in salary with government
employees. The right to claim a particular salary
against the State must arise under a contract or under
a statute.[See State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3)
[State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :