Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Sita Ram Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners claim pay protection as ex-army personnel. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding pay protection disparities. (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. court's analysis on discrimination and pay parity. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. government order not applicable to current case. (Para 15) |
| 5. writ petition allowed; pay protection granted to petitioners. (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT :
(Ajit Kumar, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
2. By means of above writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners who were selected for Constable GD in U.P. Civil Police 2018 are aggrieved for the discriminatary stand taken by respondents in not awarding them pay protection in terms of last pay drawn by them as ex-army personnel. All the petitioners were selected and appointed in the category of ex- army men and submit that if as a result of the same selection, selectees are sent in four batches for training at different point of time, the State is not justified in awarding pay protection to first batch of trainees and denying the same to other trainees only on the ground that Government Order decided for not g
Discrimination in pay protection for ex-army personnel violates Article 14; all selected candidates from the same recruitment process must be treated equally.
The differentiation in treatment of candidates from the same selection list based on training batches violates Article 14 of the Constitution and is impermissible.
Distinction in pay protection between interview and open competitive examination selections is arbitrary, lacking intelligible differentia, violating Articles 14 and 16; employees from government ser....
The court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision granting pay protection, emphasizing adherence to established legal precedents and rejecting arbitrary distinctions in pay protection e....
The court affirmed that pay protection benefits must be granted to direct recruits from PSUs regardless of recruitment through competitive examinations, rejecting arbitrary restrictions on eligibilit....
The principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' was applied, emphasizing that employees holding the same rank performing similar functions and discharging similar duties and responsibilities should be tr....
The denial of benefits to the petitioners was discriminatory and arbitrary, violating Articles 14 and 16 of The Constitution of India, and the terms and conditions of service applicable at the time o....
The court affirmed that similarly situated individuals must receive equal treatment under the law, emphasizing the arbitrary nature of the authorities' actions in denying ACP benefits.
Innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation should not be ousted from service, especially when there is no fraud or misrepresentation on their part.
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
