Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
SANJEEV KUMAR, M.A.CHOWDHARY
Haroon Rashid Lone son of Abdul Aziz Lone – Appellant
Versus
State of J&K through Commissioner Secretary to Government Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs – Respondent
JUDGMENTSanjeev J
1. The petitioner is an ex-employee of this Court and has retired as Deputy Registrar after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2014. He is aggrieved of and has called in question a communication of the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs dated 15.01.2015 and an order dated 15.10.2015 passed by respondent No.2 rejecting his representation for placing him in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 (pre-revised) on the analogy of Sh. P.S.Jamwal.
2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged to assail the impugned communications/orders, we deem it appropriate to state briefly the facts germane to the disposal of this petition.
3. The petitioner was appointed as Chief Librarian in this Court at Srinagar in the year 1999 vide order No. 535 dated 06.10.1999 in the pay scale of Rs.6700-200-10700 (revised). The petitioner, at the time of his appointment, was having Master‟s Degree in Library Science. He claims that in terms of SRO 16 of 1991 and SRO 234 of 1991, he was entitled to be placed in the grade of Rs.2200-4000 (pre- revised) and Rs.8000-13500 (revised) w.e.f the date of his appointment so as to bring the Chief Librarians of the High Court on
The court ruled that a previous judgment granting a pay scale increase was specific to an individual and did not create a general entitlement for similarly situated employees, emphasizing the princip....
All persons similarly situated should be treated similarly, and the court may consider unexplained delay and inordinate laches in writ actions.
(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 ....
Equal pay for equal work must consider seniority, qualifications, and nature of work, establishing that discrimination against meritorious employees is unconstitutional.
The principle that a senior employee cannot receive less pay than a junior is upheld, prompting the court to direct equal pay adjustments based on established seniority and promotion timelines.
The principle of equal pay for equal work does not entitle employees to claim parity in pay scales if their recruitment processes differ significantly.
Entitlement of a senior employee to stepping up of pay equal to that of a junior employee, conditions for stepping up of pay, and the applicability of various judgments related to equal pay for equal....
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
