Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Dr Justice ANITA SUMANTH, G.ARUL MURUGAN, J
B. Ganesan – Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Industries Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the review applications and context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding entitlement of pay parity. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. claims of selective benefits criticized. (Para 7 , 11 , 47) |
| 4. previous rulings impact on current applications. (Para 10 , 12 , 28) |
| 5. court observes errors in earlier judgments. (Para 36 , 39) |
| 6. judicial precedent and its implications. (Para 41 , 42) |
| 7. lack of justification for denial of parity. (Para 45 , 46 , 54) |
| 8. final disposition of review petitions. (Para 55 , 57) |
(ANITA SUMANTH, J.)
This is a batch of 35 Review Applications. The petitioners have sought a review of an order passed by the Division Bench dated 02.12.2010 in a batch of Writ Petitions.
2. Mrs.Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mrs.Meenal, learned counsel for the petitioners makes the following submissions:
i) The petitioners, employees in various Cooperative Sugar Mills had, along with other identically/similarly placed colleagues, sought parity in pay based on a Common Cadre System that had been introduced in the Sugar Mills for the posts above Supervisory C –category.
ii) The Common Cadre System (CCS) had been introduced in 1984 and abolished i
Review petitions granted for employees in Cooperative Sugar Mills seeking pay parity; prior court ruling was assumed to apply universally despite selective challenges, resulting in review for misappl....
The power of review is limited to correcting patent errors, not re-evaluating merits; mere recommendations do not confer enforceable rights.
Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the record and does not allow for re-examination of the merits of a case.
Similarly situated employees entitled to notional pay upgradation w.e.f. 01.01.1996 under 5th CPC, actual benefits from 21.04.2004, ensuring Art.14 parity.
Pay scale upgradation for Inspectors/Superintendents notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1996 with actual benefits from 21.04.2004; parity under Art.14 for similarly situated employees.
Pay parity judgments for Inspectors/Superintendents are in rem, entitling all similarly situated officers to notional fixation w.e.f. 01.01.1996 despite non-litigation; selective implementation viola....
Similarly situated employees entitled to notional revised pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996 per 5th CPC anomaly rectification; actual benefits from 21.04.2004; parity violations under Article 14 extend ju....
Similarly situated employees entitled to notional pay fixation w.e.f. 01.01.1996 under 5th CPC parity, actual benefits from 21.04.2004; Art.14 mandates uniform treatment.
Retired Inspectors/Superintendents entitled to notional pay fixation w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and actual benefits from 21.04.2004 per 5th CPC anomaly upgradation; prior judgments in rem apply to all similar....
Inspectors/Superintendents in Central Excise/Customs entitled to notional revised pay w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and actual benefits from 21.04.2004 on parity grounds; precedents in rem apply to similarly sit....
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
