Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Madhuresh Prasad, Supratim Bhattacharya, JJ
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Utpal Pandit – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. pay enhancement claims based on parity. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. court observations on the tribunal's order. (Para 3 , 5 , 7) |
| 3. implementation of previous orders and dismissal of re-agitated issues. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. final order to dismiss the writ petition. (Para 9 , 10) |
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioners are Loco Inspectors who were being granted a 30 per cent enhancement of their last pay drawn. They claimed an enhancement of 55 per cent, claiming parity with the Loco Drivers. The Tribunal has considered the claim of the applicants therein.
3. The consideration in this regard is to be found in paragraphs 6.1 to 6.3 of the order passed by the Tribunal which reads as follows:
“6.1. Although several judgments of different Co-ordinate Benches on the issue are available, we quote below the relevant extract of the judgment passed by the Principal Bench in OA no. 118 of 2006 in Vinod Kumar Saxena vs. UOI & Ors.
decided on 24.08.2006.
“...........
21. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, applicant cannot be denied the add on component of running allowance to the tune of 55% or 75% with consequent fixation of pay a
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
