https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195864 Employees appointed after a cut-off date could not claim parity in pay scale from an industrial award that protected only a distinct class of earlier employees, because the earlier benefit was a personal ad hoc protection and not a general pay revision; automatic extension to a different class was not required. The Court also reiterated that stale writ claims may be refused in equitable jurisdiction under Article 226, especially where the petitioners waited about 17 years and did not raise the grievance at the earliest opportunity. On these grounds, the appellate challenge succeeded and the respondents were denied relief. en-us Thu, 08 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Jan 2024 13:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195864 Employees appointed after a cut-off date could not claim parity in pay scale from an industrial award that protected only a distinct class of earlier employees, because the earlier benefit was a personal ad hoc protection and not a general pay revision; automatic extension to a different class was not required. The Court also reiterated that stale writ claims may be refused in equitable jurisdiction under Article 226, especially where the petitioners waited about 17 years and did not raise the grievance at the earliest opportunity. On these grounds, the appellate challenge succeeded and the respondents were denied relief. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 08 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195864