Back
IRSHAD ALI
Ram Kishan S/o Jagesjwar Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. Thru Principal Secy. Appoint And Personal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Dr. L.P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pankaj Khare, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed as under :-
[b] To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opp-parties to make payment of salary to the petitioners in the minimum of the basic pay as per revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006 along with other admissible benefits including arrears thereof.
[c] To award the cost of this petition in favour of the petitioners.
[d] To issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
[e] issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 11.5.2010. contained as (annexure no. 40)
[f] issue a writ, order or dire
The court reaffirmed the right to equitable treatment in employment, necessitating the re-evaluation of absorption-related pay and benefits for employees absorbed under the U.P. Absorption Rules.
The court upheld that differential treatment in service absorption timelines does not violate constitutional rights as long as prior benefits remain intact.
The university has exclusive authority over faculty absorption and regularization based on commission recommendations, and previous government notifications remain valid.
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
