Back
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, SAURABH BANERJEE
SI/GD Ashok Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Banerjee, J. - The petitioner appeared for appointment to the post of SI/GD through LDCE-2013 against the unreserved vacancies available for year 2013/2014. Despite successfully qualifying the written examination, his candidature for appointment was rejected on account of endorsement of Non-Qualifying Service (NQS) of 29 days over stay leave, which period was duly regularized as 29 days Leave Half Pay with No Leave Salary (LHF-WNLS), during the scrutiny of testimonials/ documents as part of Stage IV of SO no. 01/2010.
2. This led to the first round of litigation when the petitioner filed writ petition entitled CT/GD Ashok Kumar Ors. vs Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) 9973/2016, wherein this Court vide order dated 09.08.2017 held that mere absence which has been regularized by half pay leave or even warning may not be sufficient to declare the petitioner as disqualified and that the petitioner would be considered for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector in accordance with law and he would not be treated as disqualified for want of clean or unblemished records for the 'act of absence'.
3. Pursuant to his appointment as SI/GD on 26.04.2018, the petitioner vide GC-1 CRP
Entitlement to pay and allowances at par with batch-mates from the date of appointment, duty of respondents to extend all consequential benefits to personnel once their rights are established and rec....
Government service personnel must receive equal treatment regarding pay and benefits based on seniority and circumstances, ensuring no discrimination occurs among similarly situated individuals.
The principle of 'No Work No Pay' did not apply in this case, and the petitioner was entitled to all consequential benefits of his seniority as Inspector and notional fixation of pay from the date of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the petitioner, as a diploma holder, to the grade of Rs.5700-10100 retrospectively from the date of his initial appointment, emp....
Faultless employee denied appointment due to employer's reservation error entitled to full actual monetary benefits from retrospective date; notional condition quashed; deemed regular service counts ....
The denial of benefits to the petitioners was discriminatory and arbitrary, violating Articles 14 and 16 of The Constitution of India, and the terms and conditions of service applicable at the time o....
Point of Law : Article 16(4)(A) enables State to make provision for reservation with consequential seniority.
Equal pay for equal work mandates parity for similarly situated employees; prior discriminatory denial cannot be validated by subsequent service rules.
The principle of equal pay for equal work does not entitle employees to claim parity in pay scales if their recruitment processes differ significantly.
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
