Back
M. S. KARNIK, VALMIKI MENEZES
Santosh S. Mhamal S/o Shridhar Mhamal – Appellant
Versus
State of Goa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.S. KARNIK, J.
1. Heard Mr. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition no. 186 of 2023, Mr. Zaveri, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 409 of 2023, Mr. Pangam, learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Ms. Shirodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the High Court of Bombay.
2. The issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is common and hence heard and disposed by a common order.
3. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 409 of 2023 are the Section Officers. The petitioners in Writ Petition no. 186 of 2023 are Group ‘A’ employees attached to the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
4. We refer to the facts in Writ Petition no. 186 of 2023. The petitioner no. 1 is presently working as Senior Private Secretary to the Hon’ble Judge of the High Court; the petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 are working as Private Secretaries to the Hon’ble Judges. Likewise, petitioner nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 are presently working as Personal Assistants to the Hon’ble Judges, of High Court of Bombay at Goa. Respondent no. 1 is the State of Goa. Respondent no. 3 is the High Court of Bombay.
5. The petition is filed with a grievance as r
The Chief Justice's recommendations for pay scales under Article 229 must be approved by the state unless there are strong reasons for refusal, emphasizing the principle of equal pay for equal work.
Article 229 (2) of Constitution of India nowhere prescribes or indicates any particular form in which rule should be framed nor does it prescribe any formality required to be gone through.
The Chief Justice has exclusive authority to set pay and service conditions for court employees under Article 229(2), and financial constraints cannot justify the refusal of approval for such determi....
The determination of pay scales is the exclusive domain of the state, and courts should only intervene in cases of constitutional violations.
The State of Himachal Pradesh is not mandated to follow pay scales set by another State; employer discretion in service conditions is reaffirmed.
(1) Grant of benefits of higher pay scale to Central/State Government employees stand on different footing than grant of pay scale by an instrumentality of State.(2) Classification on the basis of qu....
The court affirmed that the State must respect and approve the Chief Justice's proposals for judiciary staff's financial grade upgrades unless strong reasons exist for refusal.
(1) Doctrine of delay and laches do not apply to a continuing cause of action.(2) Pay Scale – Parity – Financial implications and administrative convenience cannot override constitutional guarantees ....
The tribunal affirmed that similar employees' pay should be upgraded equally, addressing violations of equality in pay scales and ensuring equitable treatment among all central government employees.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
