Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/241260019/Legal-Method
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 01:09:11+00:00

Document:
1. The petitioner was appointed as a driver in the Delhi Police Force.
(Constable). He was designated as Constable.
duties as other drivers in the service of the Delhi Administration and the Central Government.
scale of the other drivers in the service of the Delhi Administration and the Central Government.
scales should be the same as the drivers of heavy vehicles in other departments.
been filed by the petitioner for the issue of a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution.
same pay as the drivers of heavy vehicles in other departments?
equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes.
the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer.
the appellant Board with effect from 1.4.1969 in the pay scale of Rs. 55-90.
Mechanic in the then pay scale of Rs. 80-145.
from 1.4.1969, should also be given to him.
1.4.1977, as revised from time to time.
issued notices to the parties upon which the parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings.
pay scale as that of the Fitter.
and had discharged superior functions of the post which was equal to that of Fitter.
by the Tribunal filed the appeal in the Supreme Court.
Industrial Tribunal for fresh adjudication.
the basis of the pleadings of the parties alone.
game by placing the entire burden of proof on the management that the posts are not identical.
cannot be claimed merely because there was delegation of certain powers.
was required to place documentary evidence in support of the same.
"Burden to prove a particular fact is always on the person who alleges the same."
1994 as a Cook for last sixteen years.
any regular scale meant for regular employees.
completed service of three years, were to be regularised.
so also to the pay and other allowances.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for pay scale against post of Langri?
regular pay scale against post of Langri/Cook from defendants w.e.f. 1.10.2003 till date.
to interfere in the judgment and decree under appeal and accordingly dismissed the same.
Court of Punjab and Haryana.
the facilities and benefits that would be available to the regularly appointed employees.
The denial of minimum pay to such an employee would be highly arbitrary and discriminatory.
grounds on which his minimum pay scales can be denied.
which were sponsored and/or funded by the World Bank by engaging staff on contract basis.
completion of `Million Wells Scheme'.
their claim for regular appointment will not be entertained.
12.5.1992 and extended the services of the respondents till further orders.
by asserting that they fulfill the qualification prescribed for the post.
were appointed on consolidated salary for a fixed period.
for the post of Assistant Engineer.
Appeal was allowed. Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.
date of their appointment till they continued in the employment of the Corporation.
The appellants were not justified in continuing the respondents on a consolidated salary of Rs.
work of the particular post from them without paying salary in the regular pay-scale of any post.
of the pay-scale was totally arbitrary and unjustified.
legitimate right to get minimum of the pay-scale prescribed for the post of Assistant Engineer.
5. State of Haryana and Anr. v. Tilak Raj and Ors.
wages in the Haryana Roadways.
work done by them was similar.
pressed into service. They asserted to be educationally qualified for the post.
Hence, they filed writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
equal work" was factually and legally not applicable to their case.
scale of pay applicable to the regular employees.
The State of Haryana appealed against this judgment.
salary and allowances as are being paid to regular employees holding similar posts?
2. Whether high Court was justified in applying the principle of „Equal pay for equal work‟?
The appeal was allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High court.
is not possible to hold that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is an abstract one.
par with the other group vis-a-vis an alleged discrimination.
who have already earned such pay scales is required.
6. Union of I ndia (UOI ) and Ors. v. Dineshan K.K.
Assam Rifles could not be denied.
rank holders in the Assam Rifles.
which was not a central paramilitary force.
Hence the plaintiff, Dineshan K.K. filed a writ petition in the Guauhati High Court.
Whether all the paramilitary forces, including Assam Rifles are at par with each other?
their counterparts in other central paramilitary forces?
in the pay scales of the Radio Mechanics should be rectified.
1. Whether the High Court was justified in giving the directions?
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Rifles with their counterparts in other central paramilitary forces.
State action or inaction, except to go on knocking at the doors of the executive or the legislature.
or unjust, it is open to the Court to interfere.
irrational and arbitrary and thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
assumed status of a fundamental right.
7. State of Haryana and Ors. v. Charanjit Singh and Ors.
employees from the date of their appointments.
Class IV employee, from the date of their filing the respective Petition, were justified?
the High Court for disposal.
regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts.
nor do they have to fulfill the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment.
requirements for selection are not as rigorous.
prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to.
can they claim the minimum of the regular pay scale of the regularly employed.
differ from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work.
Persons employed on contract cannot claim equal pay on basis on equal pay for equal work.
Daniel J. Lugosch Iii, Robert L. Ungerer, John A. Bersani, Edward A. Kellogg, John C. Charters and Peter C. Steingraber, Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants, Richard K. Askin and William Tapella, Capital Newspaper Division of the Hearst Corporation, Intervenor, the Herald Company, Intervenor-Appellant v. Pyramid Company of Onondaga, Eklecco Llc, James A. Tuozzolo, Robert Brvenik, Marc A. Malfitano and Scott R. Congel, Defendants-Counter-Defendants-Appellees, Robert v. Hunter, as Trustee of the Congel Family Trust Which Are General Partners of Woodchuck Hill Associates, Riesling Associates, Madeira Associates and Moselle Associates, George Schunck, as Trustee of the Congel Family Trust Which Are General Partners of Woodchuck Hill Associates, Riesling Associates, Madeira Associates and Moselle Associates, William Bucci, as Trustee of the Congel Family Trust Which Are General Partners of Woodchuck Hill Associates, Riesling Associates, Madeira Associates and Moselle Associates, S & R Group, Inc.
Williams & Lake v. Kinetech et. al.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.