Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the respondents were entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 and whether the challenge to the High Court's direction survived after the Government had taken a decision to rectify the pay anomaly.
Analysis: The respondents' claim arose from an anomaly in pay fixation after revision of the pay scales of Head Masters and other Junior High School teachers, leaving the respondents in a lower scale despite comparable duties and cadre position. The Court noted that the Government itself had, by subsequent proceedings, recognised the discrepancy and taken a decision to rectify the pay scales of the Deputy Inspector of Schools/Deputy Basic Education Officer cadre on the recommendations of the Pay Committee. In view of that decision, no further adjudication was required.
Conclusion: The direction of the High Court did not warrant interference, and the civil appeals were dismissed.
Final Conclusion: The respondents' entitlement to the revised pay scale stood sustained, and the dispute was treated as no longer requiring further judicial determination.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the competent Government has acknowledged a pay anomaly and taken a binding administrative decision to rectify it, a challenge to a corresponding judicial direction may be dismissed as no further cause survives for adjudication.