SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(MP) 1016

RAJENDRA MENON
Rupram Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S. Tamrakar, Vivek Agrawal

JUDGMENT : 

Shri S. Tamrakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate for the State.

2. Petitioner has been classified as a permanent driver in accordance to the provisions of the Standard Standing Orders formulated under the M. P. Employment Standing Order Act, petitioner claims regular pay-scale attached to the post of driver.

3. Claim made by the petitioner is based on the principles laid down by this Court in the case of State of M. P. vs. Hariram and ors., 2008(3) MPLJ 51 7 and an earlier judgment in the case of Engineer-In-Chief, P.H.E.D. and ors. vs. Budha Rao Magarde and ors., 2002(1) MPLJ 385, in the cases referred to herein, particularly in the case of Hariram (supra) in para 10 and 12 after taking note of various judgments of this Court, so also of the Supreme Court, particularly, the law laid down in the case of Budha Rao (supra) it has been held by a Bench of this Court that classification of an employee entitles to get the pay scale to the post on which he has been classified as a permanent employee. Keeping in view law laid down in the case of Hariram (supra) and observations made in para 1 0 and 12 therein, there is no reason as to



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top