Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.23 seconds)
Narinder Nath Sudan vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 31 March, 2016 cites

Union Of India Etc. Etc vs K.V. Jankiraman Etc. Etc on 27 August, 1991

3. The fact of the matter is that petitioner has been promoted with effect from the date his junior was promoted. The grievance stands redressed. However, the arrears of difference of salary have been denied by invoking the principle of 'no work, no pay' against the petitioner. It is well settled that this principle cannot be applied in cases of retrospective promotions to cure right deprivation suffered in the past when claim was wrongly ignored. There is sufficient judicial precedent to support the proposition including in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 06-04-2016 00:03:31 ::: CWP No.2288 of 2015 -2- 2010 as well the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Karnail Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board & ors., 2006(4) RSJ 671 by applying the law in Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 166 and K.V. Jankiraman's case (supra), full salary will become available to the petitioner as a matter of right.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1332 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Paluru Ramkrishnaiah & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 March, 1989

3. The fact of the matter is that petitioner has been promoted with effect from the date his junior was promoted. The grievance stands redressed. However, the arrears of difference of salary have been denied by invoking the principle of 'no work, no pay' against the petitioner. It is well settled that this principle cannot be applied in cases of retrospective promotions to cure right deprivation suffered in the past when claim was wrongly ignored. There is sufficient judicial precedent to support the proposition including in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 06-04-2016 00:03:31 ::: CWP No.2288 of 2015 -2- 2010 as well the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Karnail Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board & ors., 2006(4) RSJ 671 by applying the law in Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 166 and K.V. Jankiraman's case (supra), full salary will become available to the petitioner as a matter of right.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 198 - N D Ojha - Full Document

Karnail Singh vs Punjab State Electricity Board And ... on 29 March, 2011

3. The fact of the matter is that petitioner has been promoted with effect from the date his junior was promoted. The grievance stands redressed. However, the arrears of difference of salary have been denied by invoking the principle of 'no work, no pay' against the petitioner. It is well settled that this principle cannot be applied in cases of retrospective promotions to cure right deprivation suffered in the past when claim was wrongly ignored. There is sufficient judicial precedent to support the proposition including in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 06-04-2016 00:03:31 ::: CWP No.2288 of 2015 -2- 2010 as well the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Karnail Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board & ors., 2006(4) RSJ 671 by applying the law in Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 166 and K.V. Jankiraman's case (supra), full salary will become available to the petitioner as a matter of right.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - R K Garg - Full Document
1