SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 163

G.B.PATTANAIK, K.RAMASWAMY
Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Administration) , Bangalore – Appellant
Versus
V. K. Gururaj – Respondent


ORDER

Office report shows that notice was is sued to the respondents on 25.8.1993. Though it was served on respondent No.2 on 14.9.1993 and on respondent No.7 on 7.9.1993, they do not appear either in person or through counsel. Neither unserved envelopes nor A/D cards have been received in respect of respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 6. Under these circumstances, notice to them must be deemed to have been served.

2. Leave granted.

3. We have heard the counsel for the appellant. The Government in O.M.No. F7(52) E III/78, dated May 5, 1979 have stated that special grant of pay of Rs. 35/- per month to the Upper Division Clerks in the non-secretariat administrative offices was provided. Out of the UDCs carrying the scale of Rs. 330-560/-, 10% of the posts were earmarked with special grant of pay of Rs. 35/- in the secretariat and other places and they were directed to handle cases of complex nature involving deep study and competence. For dealing with such cases certain officers have been promoted to that 10% posts specified among the UDCs in the secretariat as well as non-secretariat administrative officers. They were being paid @ Rs. 35/- per month as compensation for discharge of special dutie






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top