https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313824 Absorbed deputationists in the Corporation were held entitled to one advance increment under the pay-fixation proviso because they satisfied the prescribed continuous-service condition and were governed by the same service regulations as other employees. Denial of the same benefit to State Government deputationists, while extending it to similarly placed Central Government transferees, was found arbitrary and discriminatory under Article 14. The Court also rejected objections based on delay, laches, constructive res judicata, Order II Rule 2, and want of power to grant mandamus, holding that equal treatment could be directed once the statutory benefit had been granted to another comparable class. en-us Tue, 12 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 May 2024 18:45:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313824 Absorbed deputationists in the Corporation were held entitled to one advance increment under the pay-fixation proviso because they satisfied the prescribed continuous-service condition and were governed by the same service regulations as other employees. Denial of the same benefit to State Government deputationists, while extending it to similarly placed Central Government transferees, was found arbitrary and discriminatory under Article 14. The Court also rejected objections based on delay, laches, constructive res judicata, Order II Rule 2, and want of power to grant mandamus, holding that equal treatment could be directed once the statutory benefit had been granted to another comparable class. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 12 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313824