Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Bhagwan Dass And Others vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 31 July, 1987
In Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana 1987 AIR 2049 : The
Petitioners had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32
of Constitution seeking regularisation and parity in pay. There were two
schemes for adult education in state of Haryana. One sponsored by State
Government and another by Central Government. The Petitioners
working under the project of the State Government, though performing
same duties and responsibilities of that of Central sponsored scheme,
were paid only fixed allowance/honorarium. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court rejected in the stand of State Government that equal pay for equal
work would not be applicable since Recruitment or Petitioners is
different from the mode of recruitment of respondents. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court while holding so in para 6 observed that :
Niaz Mohammad And Others, Etc. Etc. vs State Of Haryana And Others on 20 September, 1994
In Jaipal, Niaz Mohammed and Others v. State of Haryana
1988 AIR (SC) 1504 the claim for parity in pay was disputed by the
Government by contending the mode of selection between parties is
absolutely different. Above contention was rejected by Hon'ble
Supreme Court by holding that the difference in mode of selection will
not affect the application of the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' if
both the classes of persons perform similar functions and duties under
the same employer.
Randhir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 February, 1982
17. Applicants draw our attention to Apex Court order in Randhir
Singh v. Union of India 1982 AIR 879 :
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India vs Tarit Ranjan Das on 8 October, 2003
It has been further held in Union of India
v. Tarit Ranjan Das (2003) 11 SCC 658: 2004 SCC (L&S) 160 that
the conclusions arrived at by a Pay Commission are not susceptible to
judicial review.
Noida Jhuggi Jhopari Naggik Kalyan ... vs New Okhla Industrial Development ... on 15 July, 2010
4. Equal pay for equal work, though not a fundamental right
guaranteed to Government servants, is a doctrine in consonance with
principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of Constitution of India,
argue the applicants. A hostile discrimination, which is illogical and
irrational and without an intelligible differentia, which has a reasonable
nexus with the object sought to be achieved will not pass the test of
reasonableness. Similarly placed cannot be discriminated in the matter
of pay scale as held in Noida Enterprises Association v. Noida Authority
2009(1) SCC (L&S) 672. Similar view was taken by the Principle
Bench of the CAT in O.A No. 164/2009 by its order dated 19.02.2009.
1