Surendra Nath Pandey v. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Bank Ltd.34, decided by a two Judge bench The appellants in the above mentioned case, were appointed during 1978 to 1981 on daily wage basis, by the U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd. Upto 30.6.1981, they were paid daily wages.
The skilled labourers were required to possess technical degree diploma qualification.
229/2013 A. No.
Their wages were far less than the salary and allowances paid to regular employees, of the Posts and Telegraphs Department, engaged for the same nature of work.
The recommendation made by the Bhatnagar Committee was accepted, and accordingly, Rural Development Officers were extended the same fitment of salary, as generalist officers.
Prior to 7.3.1984, they were paid fixed salary and allowance, at the rate of Rs.60/ per month.
They will companytinue to be paid at the approved local rates.
The question of viability of the claim raised by Rural Development Officers, was referred to the Bhatnagar Committee.
The scale of pay of Driver Constables, in case of number matriculates was Rs.210 270, and in case of matriculates was Rs.225 308.
The petitioners were employees of Grih Kalyan Kendras.
212/2013 A. No.
By virtue of the above directions, the respondents who were employed engaged by Official Liquidators, were paid salaries and allowances from the Companys funds.
The Union of India raised three companytentions, in its appeal to this Court.
Having examined the companytroversy, this Court rejected all the above submissions advanced on behalf of the State Government.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the appellant filed a writ petition C.W.P. No.
While companycluding, this Court clarified that in the instant case, it was dealing with temporary employees engaged by the same employer, doing work of the same nature, as was being required of those engaged in the regular cadre, on a regular basis.
Some of them were being paid a fixed salary, described as a honorarium, while others were working on piece rate wages at the production centres, without there being any provision for any scale of pay or other benefits like gratuity, pension, provident fund etc.
The petitioners were appointed as Supervisors.
The High Court further directed, that the respondent be paid salary in the regular scale of pay admissible to Junior Assistants, with effect from September, 1997.
214/2013 A. No.
232/2013 A. No.
218/2013 A. No.
Firstly, that the pay scale claimed by the respondent, was that of the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police.
Dissatisfied with the judgment rendered by the High Court, the Union Territory Administration of Chandigarh, approached this Court.
It was pointed out, that the respondent was holding an inferior post of Naik Radio Operator .
State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj27, decided by a two Judge bench Thirty five respondents were appointed at different points of time, as Helpers on daily wages by the Haryana Roadways.
The semi skilled labour companysisted of Carpenters, Wiremen, Draftsmen, A.C. Mechanics etc.
219/2013 A. No.
The pay scale of Drivers in the number secretariat offices in Delhi was, Rs.260 350.
While adjudicating upon the appeal preferred by the appellants, this Court held as under We are of the view that the real issue is whether persons employed on stopgap or ad hoc basis were entitled to the benefit of pay scales with increments during the period of service on daily or stopgap or ad hoc basis.
And as such, the claim made by the respondent, of parity with a post superior in hierarchy to the post held by him , was number sustainable.
for Dr. Kailash Chand, AOR Mr. Shish Pal Laler, Adv.
227/2013 A. No.
The appellant submitted a representation seeking revision of his pay scale on the ground, that in the headquarters of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, the post of Superintendent is a promotional post, from the post of Assistant which carried the pay scale of Rs.1640 2900 .
This judgment is impugned in the present appeal.
It was held, that the duties discharged by the petitioners even though for a shorter duration, were number any different from Supervisors, engaged in the regular cadre.
CWP number 1536 of 1988, decided on 5.2.2003 .
It would be relevant to mention, that the petitioner Workers Union was representing employees working in various centres of the Grih Kalyan Kendras, on ad hoc basis.
Orissa University of Agriculture Technology v. Manoj K. Mohanty10, decided by a two Judge bench The respondent in the above case, was appointed as a Typist in 1990, on a companysolidated salary of Rs.530/ per month, against a vacancy of the post of Junior Assistant.
No change.
The skilled labour companysisted of labourers doing technical work.
They desired the Union of India to pay them wages in the regular pay scale, on par with other employees performing similar work under the New Delhi Municipal Committee, or the Delhi Administration, or the Union of India.
Since the State Bank of India did number accede to their request, they approached the Karnataka High Court.
All the posts in the Junior Management Grade Scale 1 cadre, were divisible into two categories generalist officers, and specialist officers.
The Director General, Posts and Telegraphs Department, by an order dated 15.5.1980 prescribed the following wages for casual labourers in the Department Casual labour who has number companypleted 720 days of service in a period of three years at the rate of 240 days per annum with the Department as on April 1, 1980.
Despite the passage of five years since his induction into service, he was paid the same companysolidated salary referred to above , and was also number being regularized.
Since the benefit of additional increment was denied to other specialist officers, they also made a grievance and claimed the benefit of additional increments, as had been extended to Rural Development Officers.
The unskilled labour was engaged in digging, carrying loads and other similar types of work.
221/2013 A. No.
The appellants were directed to pay emoluments to the respondents, at the minimum of the pay scale, prescribed for the post of Assistant Engineer as revised from time to time , from the date of their appointment, till they companytinued in the employment of the Corporation.
They desired the Union of India, to pay them wages in the regular pay scales, at par with other employees performing similar work, under the New Delhi Municipal Committee, or the Delhi Administration, or the Union of India.
Khursheed Anwar33, decided by a two Judge bench In the instant case, the respondents were employed on companytract basis, on a companysolidated monthly salary of Rs.2000/ .
After serving for a few years, he addressed a representation to the appellant, claiming parity with one B.V. Prabhakar, employed at the Rourkela Steel Plant a different unit of the same companypany .
Under the prevalent rules the 1979 Order, the benefit of a higher starting pay, was extended only to Probationary Officers and Trainee Officers i.e. to generalist officers , while Rural Development Officers and other specialist officers like Assistant Law Officers, Security Officers, Assistant Engineers etc.,
220/2013 A. No.
The respondent then approached the Orissa High Court by way of a writ petition, seeking appointment on regular basis.
Casual labour who having been working with the Department from April 1, 1977 or earlier and have companypleted 720 days of service as on April 1, 1980.
Their companytractual appointment was companytinued from time to time.
They filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, claiming regularization because they had rendered long years of service.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, a direction was issued to the Union Territory Administration of Chandigarh, to appoint a High Level Equivalence Committee, to examine the nature of duties and responsibilities of the post of Senior Dietician working under the Union Territory Administration of Chandigarh, vis a vis, Dietician gazetted working under the State of Punjab.
226/2013 A. No.
The right claimed by the respondents, to be paid in the same time scale, as regularly employed Ledger Keepers Ledger Clerks were being paid, was declined.
They approached this Court again by filing civil writ petition number 869 of 1988, which was disposed of by the judgment cited above.
The writ petition has also been dismissed by judgment dated 8 7 2008.
State Bank of India v. M.R. Ganesh Babu8, decided by a three Judge bench Entry into the management cadre in banking establishments, is Junior Management Grade Scale 1.
They were being paid very low wages.
228/2013 A. No.
223/2013 A. No.
It was also pointed out, that another individual junior to him was regularized against the post of Junior Assistant.
Their claim was rejected by the High Court.
224/2013 A. No.
They needed to have technical experience, but were number required to possess any degree or diploma qualification.
233/2013 A. No.
The petitioners were employees of Grih Kalyan Kendras.
Even though a learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition, an intra Court appeal preferred by the respondent, was allowed.
211/2013 A. No.
Steel Authority of India Limited v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya16, decided by a three Judge bench The respondent in the above case, was appointed against the post of Speech Therapist Audiologist, in the Durgapur Steel Plant, in S 6 grade in Medical and Health Services.
A review petition filed against the High Courts order dated 11.9.1997, was dismissed.
A division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in State of Punjab Ors.
The unskilled labour companysisted of Safai Workers, Helpers, Peons, and the like.
Dissatisfied with the above orders, the Orissa University of Agriculture Technology approached this Court.
The reason for allowing them fixed salary was, that they were required to work, only on part time basis.
CC number 15616 of 2011, and Special Leave Petition Civil .
225/2013 A. No.
Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under PT Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of India22, decided by a two Judge bench The persons on whose behalf the Mazdoor Manch had approached this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, were working as daily rated casual labourers, in the Posts and Telegraphs Department.
All the three categories of employees, referred to above, were engaged as casual labourers.
Prior to their appointment, they were interviewed by a selection companymittee alongwith other eligible candidates, and were found to be suitable for the job.
The appellant did number accept the claim raised by the respondent.
The High Court disposed of the said writ petition, by directing, that the respondent be number disengaged from service.
v. Rajinder Singh Ors.
There is numbercomparison between the appellant and Shri J.I.P. Madan.
were number entitled to a higher starting pay.
And that, of Drivers employed in secretariat offices in Delhi, was Rs.260 400.
This Court also declined the plea canvassed on behalf of the Government, that they were engaged in a temporary scheme against posts which were sanctioned on year to year basis.
The said cadre companyprises of Probationary Officers, Trainee Officers and other officers who possess technical skills specialized officers , such as Assistant Law Officers, Security Officers, Assistant Engineers, Technical Officers, Medical Officers, Rural Development Officers, and other technical posts.
Furthermore, this Court arrived at the companyclusion, that there was numbermaterial on the record of the case to demonstrate, that the essential qualifications and the method of recruitment for, as also, the duties and responsibilities of the post held by him, were similar to those of the post, against which the respondent was claiming parity.
Thereafter, the fixed salary was enhanced to Rs.150/ per month.
Though they were employed on companytract basis, the fact that two posts of Assistant Engineer and one post of Junior Engineer were vacant at the time of their engagement, was number disputed.
9595 CAT of 2004 before the High Court.
From 1.7.1981, they were paid companysolidated salary of Rs.368 per month, which was increased to Rs.575 per month with effect from 1.4.1982.
They were paid remuneration at the rate of Rs.5,000/ per month, as fixed salary.
LPA number 337 of 2003, decided on 7.1.2009 , set aside, in an intra court appeal, the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of the High Court, in Rajinder Singh Ors.
The case set up by the State Government was, that the petitioners were number full time employees their mode of recruitment was different from Supervisors engaged on regular basis the nature of functions discharged by them, was number similar to those discharged by Supervisors engaged in the regular cadre and their appointments were made for a period of six months, because the posts against which they were appointed, were sanctioned for one year at a time.
217/2013 A. No.
In the above judgment, the learned single Judge had directed the State to pay to the writ petitioners who were daily wagers working as Pump Operators, Fitters, Helpers, Drivers, Plumbers, Chowkidars etc. ,
CWP number 1536 of 1988 .
minimum of the pay scale, revised from time to time, with permissible allowances, as were being paid to similarly placed regular employees arrears payable, were limited to a period of three years, prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.
v. State of Punjab Ors.
The specialist officers claimed, that in all respects, they performed similar duties and responsibilities, as Rural Development Officers, and therefore, they were entitled to the benefit of additional increments, at the time of their appointment, as had been extended to Rural Development Officers.
They included three broad categories of workers, namely, unskilled, semi skilled and skilled.
CC number 16434 of 2011 is companydoned.
Leave is granted in all special leave petitions.
231/2013 A. No.
Appeals preferred against the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge, were dismissed by a division bench of the High Court.
It was held, that the petitioners, who were engaged on temporary basis as Supervisors, were entitled to be paid on the same basis, and in the same pay scale, at which those employed in the regular cadre discharging similar duties as Supervisors, were being paid.
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. Delay in filing and refiling Special Leave Petition Civil .
222/2013 A. No.
Uttar Pradesh Land Development Corporation v. Mohd.
Even though recruitment of Supervisors in the regular cadre was made by the Subordinate Selection Board by way of an open selection, whereas the petitioners were selected through a process of companysideration which was limited to a cluster of a few villages, it was companycluded that, that companyld number justify the denial to the petitioners, wages which were being paid to Supervisors, working in the regular cadre.
They also claimed salary, as was payable to regular employees, engaged for the same nature of work, as was being performed by them.
230/2013 A. No.
Dissatisfied with the orders passed by the High Court, the employees of the school approached this Court.
Rural Development Officers, agitated their claim for similar benefits, as were extended to Probationary Officers and Trainee Officers i.e. to the generalist officers .
In order to demonstrate the aforesaid factual position, the respondent placed reliance on two certificates dated 4.12.1993 and 25.3.1996, issued to him by the Dean of the institute, affirming his stance.
The scale of pay of Drivers in the Railway Protection Force, at that juncture was Rs.260 400.
