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

1999 Supreme(SC) 205

R.C.LAHOTI, SUJATA V.MANOHAR
Govt. Of A. P. – Appellant
Versus
V. Veera Raghavan – Respondent


JUDGMENT

S.V.MANOHAR, J.

(1) THE respondent was directly recruited as a District. Munsif on 10/10/1973. When he Was so recruited, one M. Raniachandra Reddy and C.Rami Reddy were already promoted as District Munsiffs w.e.f. 13/11/1966 However, in the seniority list of District Munsiffs, the respondent was shown as senior to those two persons presumably because those two persons were adjusted against the quota of promotees from a date later than 1973. However, these two persons were drawing a pay which was more than the pay drawn by the respondent in view of their longer actual service as District Munsiffs starting from November, 1966.

(2) IN 1988, the respondent while working as a District Judge filed the present writ petition seeking the same pay as was being drawn hy these two persons w.e.f. 1/11/1973. By an interim order, the learned single Judge of the High Court rave a direction to revise the pay of the respondent so as to make it at par with the pay actually drawn by the said | two persons. Thereafter, the respondent did I not seek implementation of the interim order. However, on 16/2/1998, when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned single

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