Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)
Ms. Adeline Rodrigues vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 August, 2013 cites

Union Of India And Anr vs S.B. Vohra And Ors on 5 January, 2004

She has invited our attention to the observations made by the Apex Court in S.B. Vhora's case (supra) and the judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1016 of 2006. She submitted that this Judgment given by the Division 1 JT 2004(1) SC 38 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2014 03:49:44 ::: 12/30 (WP868.2008) Bench of the Gujarat High Court was challenged by the State of Gujarat in the Apex Court and, after the matter was heard for some time, the State of Gujarat withdrew the said SLP which they had filed in the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 1560 - S B Sinha - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs Indian Hotel & Retaurants Assn.& Ors on 16 July, 2013

13. So far as the judgment in State of Maharashtra vs. Association of Court Stenos, P.A., P.S and another 1 on which the reliance is placed by the learned Counsel appearing on 1 (2002) 2 SCC 141 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2014 03:49:44 ::: 23/30 (WP868.2008) behalf of Respondents is concerned, in our view, ratio of the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. On the contrary, observations made by the Apex Court in para 5 of the said judgment supports the case of the Petitioners. In the said case Court Stenographers, Personal Assistants and Personal Secretaries to the Bombay High Court Judges had filed a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming parity of pay-scales as was given to Senior Personal Assistants to the Chief Secretary of the State pursuant to the 5th Central Pay Commission Report. The High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had held that there was a parity in the pay-scales of the said two set of employees and after following the principle of equal pay for equal work, State Government was directed to pay the same pay-scales to the said Petitioners in Writ Petition. Apex Court, however, held that such a direction could not be given under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In our view, ratio of the said case will not apply to the facts of the present case. On the contrary, in para 5 of the said judgment the Apex Court has observed that Hon'ble Chief Justice is the sole authority for fixing the salaries of the employees of the High Court, subject to rules framed under the said Article. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court, we will have to consider the rival submissions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 86 - Cited by 77 - A Kabir - Full Document

M. Gurumoorthy vs Accountant General Assam & Nagaland & ... on 21 April, 1971

The contents and the tenor of the letters dated 13/14.10.2005 and 7.6.2006 of the Law Secretary are not only in bad taste but they also run counter to the provisions of Article 229(2) of the Constitution as interpreted by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court right from M. Gurumoorthy vs. Accountant General, Assam and Nagaland, 1971 (2) SCC 137 and several other decisions referred to hereinabove."
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 57 - A N Grover - Full Document

High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan vs Ramesh Chand Paliwal & Anr on 19 February, 1998

In High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paliwal and Another [JT 1998 (2) SC 1 : 1998 (3) SCC 72] , a Division bench of this Court inter alia held that the Chief Justice has the requisite power to revise the scales of pay subject of course to the approval granted in this behalf by the Governor. This Court in no certain terms observed :
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 93 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

All India Judges' Association And ... vs Union Of India And Others on 24 August, 1993

She invited our attention to the Division Bench Judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1016 of 2006 and also the judgment of the Apex Court in All India Judges' Association vs. Union of India in I.A. No.71A & 142 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1022 of 1989. She submitted that though Rules were not specifically framed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, in view of the directions given by the two learned Chief Justices viz Chief Justice C.K. Thakkar and Chief Justice Dalveer Bhandari, it was not open for Respondent No.1 to question the decision of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. She submitted that Respondent No.1 did not even extend courtesy of forwarding the directions of the Hon'ble Chief Justice to the Hon'ble Governor for the State of Maharashtra.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 482 - P B Sawant - Full Document
1