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

2008 Supreme(SC) 1611

G.S.SINGHVI, B.N.AGARWAL, HARJIT SINGH BEDI
Official Liquidator – Appellant
Versus
Dayanand – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
P.P. Malhotra, A.S.G., Brijender Chahar, BhaskarP. Gupta, R.Venkataramani, Colin Gonsalves, Sr.Advs., RavindraKumar, Ms.Rekha Pandey, Ms.Jyoti Chahar, Shivalok Yashobardhan, Jagbir Singh Malik, B.K.Prasad, P.Parmeswaran, D.S. Mahra, Naveen R. Nath, Subhash Chandra Birla, Subrat Birla, Pijush K.Roy, G.Ramakrishna Prasad, Sudarshan Rajan, P.Narasimhan, Aljo K. Joseph, Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh, D.P. Mukherjee, Pukhramban Ramesh Kumar, David A., Jai Singh, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Ms. Aparna Bhat, Ms. Jyoti Singh, Ankur Chhibber and Sudershsn Rajan, Advocates.

Judgement Key Points

The Supreme Court emphasized that mere similarity in the duties or work performed by two groups of employees does not automatically entitle them to equal pay or parity in service benefits. The Court cautioned that factors such as the source of recruitment and the cadre controlling authority are crucial in determining entitlement to parity. If the source of recruitment is different or the cadre is managed by a different authority, then employees cannot claim parity as a matter of right solely based on the nature of their work. The decision underscores the importance of examining the recruitment process and administrative control when assessing claims for equality in pay or status, rather than relying solely on the similarity of duties performed.


JUDGMENT

G.S. Singhvi, J. —

1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) Nos.12798/2005 and 13838/2006.

2. These appeals are directed against the orders of Calcutta and Delhi High Courts, whereby directions have been issued to the appellants herein to absorb the persons employed by the Official Liquidators attached to those High Courts under Rule 308 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (for short ‘the 1959 Rules’) against the posts sanctioned by the Government of India, Department of Company Affairs.

FACTS

3.For the sake of convenience, we have culled out the facts from the pleadings of Writ Petition No.1387 of 2001 filed by Tapas Chakraborty and 109 others in Calcutta High Court, Writ Petition No.2728 of 2001 filed by Smt. Daya Dua and others in Delhi High Court, the record of these appeals and documents filed/produced by the learned counsel for the parties during the pendency of the appeals. These are:

(i) There are two categories of employees in the offices of the Official Liquidators attached to different High Courts. The first category comprises of the employees who are appointed against the posts sanctioned by the Government of India, Department of Company Affairs. They are recruited in accorda



































































































































































































































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