https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304128 Permanent classification under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 was treated as distinct from regular appointment or regularisation in service. The Court noted that completion of the prescribed service conditions created permanency under the Rules, but did not confer the full incidents of regular recruitment or regular-service benefits. It further held that, even where equal pay for equal work is relevant, a temporary or merely permanent-classified employee is entitled only to the minimum of the applicable pay-scale unless regularised. Contempt proceedings could not be used to expand the original directions or secure increments not expressly granted, so fixation at the minimum of the regular pay-scale was sufficient compliance. en-us Thu, 15 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Sep 2022 07:02:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304128 Permanent classification under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 was treated as distinct from regular appointment or regularisation in service. The Court noted that completion of the prescribed service conditions created permanency under the Rules, but did not confer the full incidents of regular recruitment or regular-service benefits. It further held that, even where equal pay for equal work is relevant, a temporary or merely permanent-classified employee is entitled only to the minimum of the applicable pay-scale unless regularised. Contempt proceedings could not be used to expand the original directions or secure increments not expressly granted, so fixation at the minimum of the regular pay-scale was sufficient compliance. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 15 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304128