Back
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Haryana Federation of Engineers – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Tribhuvan Dahiya, J. (Oral)
This petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.2.2013, Annexure P-7; a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to fix pay scale of Executive Engineer one step higher as compared to that of the Assistant Engineer, and pay scale of Superintending Engineer one step higher as compared to that of the Executive Engineer w.e.f. 1.5.1989.
2. The petitioner is a registered Association of Engineers working with the respondent Department. As submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions, they are aggrieved against pay scales for the posts of Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer granted w.e.f. 1.5.1989 to 31.12.1995 only.
3. Briefly, facts of the case are, the post of Assistant Engineer/Assistant Executive Engineer is the initial post in the Department; it is the feeder post for Executive Engineer, and Executive Engineer is the feeder post for Superintending Engineer. Therefore, pay scales of these three posts have always been hierarchically different; Assistant Engineers in the lowest scale, Executive Engineers in the next higher scale and Superintending Engineers in the scale one s
Promotional pay scales must exceed those of feeder posts, and minimal increases do not fulfill legal standards for equity in remuneration.
Members of the Petitioner Association ought to have been treated equally w.e.f. 1.1.1986. In view of this fact, we are of the opinion that the end of justice would be served if the respondents are di....
The court ruled that delay in seeking pay-scale revision after retirement undermines claims, emphasizing the lack of merit in the appeals.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court will not entertain appeals seeking to re-open decided matters without pointing out any illegality or infirmity in the previous order....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the judgment in Hans Raj case was not in personam but in rem, and all similarly situated persons were entitled to the higher pay scale of Rs.1....
Doctrine of equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of law i.e. equal pay must be for equal work of equal value.
The determination of pay scales is the exclusive domain of the state, and courts should only intervene in cases of constitutional violations.
The principle of equal pay for equal work under Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution mandates that employees performing similar duties be compensated equally, regardless of title discrepancies.
The court established that pay scales for employees in different Nagarpalikas cannot be equated due to distinct financial and regulatory frameworks governing each entity.
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
