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

1998 Supreme(Raj) 984

B.S.CHAUHAN
Shambhu Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Vimal Mathur, Advocate.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant writ petition has been filed for two reliefs, viz., equal pay for equal work and for considering the regularisation of the petitioner on the post on which he is working for the last ten years.

2. Petitioner was appointed on 24.12.80 as Chowkidar cum Helper and his designation was changed as Beldar subsequently and on 24.12.84 he was asked to work as a Time-keeper with the respondents and claims that he is entitled to receive the salary in the minimum regular pay scale of the post of Time-keeper and further entitled to be considered for regularisation on the said post.

3. Heard Mr. M.S. Sighvi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vimal Mathur, learned counsel for the respondents.

4. It is evident from various certificates filed with the petition that the petitioner has been asked by the respondents' Authority to work as Time-keeper and his name has been placed in the list of persons to be considered for regularisation on the post of Lower Division Clerk. Mr. Vimal Mathur, learned counsel for the respondents, could not point out as to how the certificates issued by the respondents authorities are not correct. However, his submission is that merely because














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