IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD
Suryakant Sinha, S/o. Mr. Shyam Lal Sinha – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, School Education Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims for equal treatment in absorption policy. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 10) |
| 2. arguments against discriminatory absorption conditions. (Para 7 , 12 , 16) |
| 3. expectation of absorption according to new policy. (Para 11 , 14 , 17) |
| 4. defense against perceived policy prejudice. (Para 18 , 20 , 21 , 25 , 29) |
| 5. limitations on judicial review of policy decisions. (Para 26 , 28 , 30 , 32) |
Order :
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.
1. Heard Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents.
2. Since all these writ petitions raise substantially similar questions of fact and law, they have been ordered to be clubbed together.
Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matters were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure consistency in the adjudication of the issues involved.
3. All the petitioners, in the present batch of writ petitions, seek a direction to the respondents to consider their cases for absorp
Municipal Council, Neemuch v. Mahadeo Real Estate and Others
Federation of Railway Officers Association and others v. Union of India and others
The court upheld that differential treatment in service absorption timelines does not violate constitutional rights as long as prior benefits remain intact.
The principle of parity mandates that similarly situated individuals must be treated equally in matters of service absorption and benefits.
The court emphasized that the condition imposed by the Finance Department for absorption of the petitioners in Government services was arbitrary and legally unsustainable, and that the respondents ha....
The court reaffirmed the right to equitable treatment in employment, necessitating the re-evaluation of absorption-related pay and benefits for employees absorbed under the U.P. Absorption Rules.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.