Judgments - Pay
DEVILAL S/O BHAGIRATH Vs. M. P. STATE
Jaikumar Meena vs. Smt. Radha Meena & Anr.
Ramvaran Sharma Vs. Smt. Ramsnehi Sharma
Gaurav Lohiya Vs. Smt. Nidhi Lohiya and Another
Kishan Pilley and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Smt. Kamlesh Vs. Santoshi
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS Vs. JAGJIT SINGH AND ORS
Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether the concerned employees (before this Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as were Full Judgment
SHOBHA RAM RATURI Vs. HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.& ORS
Having given our thoughtful consideration to the controversy, we are satisfied, that after the impugned order of retirement dated 31.12.2002 was set aside, the appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits. The fault lies with the respondents in not having utilised the services of the appellant for the period from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005. Had the appellant been allowed to continue in service, Full Judgment
B. RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
When the order of suspension is revoked and the suspended employee is asked to join the duty, he is required to do so. How the period of suspension is to be treated is another aspect. At the most, such an employee would be entitled to full salary during the suspension period if no order is passed as to how the suspension period would be governed. That would not Full Judgment
THE CHAIRMAN,GWALIOR DEVT.AUTH.& ANR. Vs. SANDEEP TIWARI & ANR.
STATE OF MP. & ORS. Vs. MALA BANERJEE
3 Very briefly stated, the dispute pertains to the eligibility of the Respondents, all of whom are Lecturers/Teachers in the employment of the Education and Tribal Welfare Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, for increased pay scales. The Respondents claim the benefits of the Kramonnati Scheme with effect from 19.4.1999, whereas the Appellants assert that they are willing to grant the benefit of the Kramonnati Scheme Full Judgment