Equal Pay for Equal Work | Equality is not to be based solely on designation or nature of work; J&K and Ladakh HC reiterates
The High Court stated that that the person who asserts that there is equality in work has to prove the same first.
The High Court stated that that the person who asserts that there is equality in work has to prove the same first.
Supreme Court regarded the High Court’s conclusion to be ‘unexceptionable’ since it did not equate two sets of employees in different organisations.
Uttaranchal High Court: Lok Pal Singh, J., allowed a writ petition which was filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Vandana Kasrekar, J., allowed a writ petition and extended the benefit of 5th pay scale to the petitioner.
Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Division Bench of Rajiv Sharma and Harinder Singh Sindhu, JJ. dismissed the writ petition on the
Karnataka High Court: P.B. Bajanthri J., dismissed the petition for regularisation of the service on the ground that statutory rule recognizing such
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Petitioner had approached the Court before a bench of Sheel Nagu, J. under Article 226 of the Constitution
Supreme Court: A Bench comprising of A.M. Sapre and Indu Malhotra, JJ. disposed of an appeal seeking enhanced severance package wherein the order
Supreme Court: In the case where the validity of the Rules made in respect of the 6th Pay Commission by State of
Supreme Court: In the matter where the rights of the posters working for the Indian Army were I n question, the Court