Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.48 seconds)
Hari Krishan Shandil S/O Sh. Salig Ram ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 October, 2022 cites

Union Of India & Ors vs Dineshan K.K on 4 January, 2008

and Another v. Sant Raj Singh and Others (2006) 9 SCC 82, Union of India and Another v. Mahajabeen Akhtar (2008) 1 SCC 368, Union of India v. Dineshan K.K (2008) 1 SCC 586, Union of India and Others v. Hiranmoy Sen and Others (2008) 1 SCC 630, Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others (2008) 10 SCC 1, U.P. SEB and Another v. Aziz Ahmad (2009) 2 SCC 606 and State of M.P. and Others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (2009) 13 SCC 635)".
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 189 - D K Jain - Full Document

Indian Overseas Bank vs I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers Union & Anr on 11 April, 2000

SCC 191] and Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers' Union [(2000) 4 SCC 245]. However, so long as the posts do exist and are manned, there appears to be no justification for granting the respondents a scale of pay lower than that sanctioned for those employees who are brought on deputation. In fact, the sequence of events, discussed above, clearly shows that the employees of the Corporation have been ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:52:27 :::CIS 27 treated at par with those in Government at the time of revision of .
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 349 - Full Document

Randhir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 February, 1982

In Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. , a bench of three learned Judges of this Court had observed that principle of equal pay for equal work is not a mere demagogic slogan but a constitutional goal, capable of being attained through constitutional remedies and held that this principle had to be read under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This decision was ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:52:27 :::CIS 28 affirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in D.S. Nakara & Ors.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 521 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Secretary, Finance Department And Ors vs West Bengal Registration Service ... on 20 February, 1992

13. Initially, particularly in the early eighties, the said principle was being applied as an absolute rule but realizing its cascading effect on other cadres, in subsequent decisions of this Court, a note of caution was sounded that the principle of equal pay for equal work had no mathematical application in every case of similar work. It has been observed that equation of posts and equation of pay structure being complex matters are generally left to the Executive and expert bodies like the Pay Commission etc. It has been emphasized that a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed by the Court as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. (Vide: Secretary, Finance Department & Ors. Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association & Ors. and State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association. Nevertheless, it will not be correct to lay down as an absolute rule that merely because determination and granting of pay scales is the prerogative of the Executive, the Court has no jurisdiction to examine any pay structure and an aggrieved employee has no remedy if he is unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction, except to go on knocking at the doors of the Executive or the Legislature, as is sought to be canvassed on behalf of the appellants. Undoubtedly, when there is no dispute with regard to the qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the persons holding identical posts or ranks but they are treated differently merely because they belong to different departments or the basis for ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:52:27 :::CIS 29 classification of posts is ex-facie irrational, arbitrary or unjust, it is .
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 181 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. vs Rajesh Kumar Jindal on 8 January, 2019

18. It is not in dispute that for considering the equation of posts and the issue of equivalence of posts, some factors had been held to be determinative i.e. (i) The nature and duties of a post; (ii) The responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding a post, the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged; (iii) The minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; and (iv) The salary of the post. The burden of proof in establishing parity in pay scales and the nature of duties and responsibilities is on the person claiming such right. In case, the person claiming parity succeeds in establishing the he is similarly situate to the person, who has been granted higher pay scale, by placing on record material before the court to prove the nature of duties and functions are similar and that they are entitled to parity of pay scales, court would be justified in considering the claim of an employee on the basis of principle of "equal pay for equal work". Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd v. Rajesh Kumar Jindal, (2019) 3 SCC 547, wherein it has been held that it is the duty of an employee seeking parity of pay under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India to prove and establish that he had been discriminated as the question of parity has to be decided ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:52:27 :::CIS 30 on consideration of various factors as well as statutory rules etc. i.e. (i) .
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 107 - R Banumathi - Full Document
1   2 3 Next