Neelam rani case, Jbt 16290 examples and supreme court decision, Neelam Rani case generalized

Neelam Rani case generalized click here for detail

18460 ,16290 आदि वेतन विसंगति मामलों मे , सरकार ने Generalisation किया..

इसमें कुछ खामियां रह गई हैं जो इस प्रकार हैं-

1 यह लाभ उसी कर्मचारी को मिलेगा जो फिलहाल सेवा में हो तथा उसकी नियमित नियुक्ति 31 Dec 2005 or before हो।

2- शर्त यह है कि उसके
कनिष्ठ , जिसका upgraded वेतन fixe हुआ था , की नियुक्ति 1-1-06 से 18-8-09 तक की हो।

3_ Senior's pay will be stepped up a , at par with their junior counterpart.
4 - यह वृद्धि PP के रूप में होगी ।
5 - This PP will be subsumed in future annual/ ACP increments.

अर्थात्‌
1-यह सभी के लिए नहीं है
2- यहArrear उस date से मिलेगा जिस date से उसके Junior ने उससे अधिक वेतन लेना शुरू किया था , यानि 1-1-06 से जरूरी नहीं ।

Neelam Rani case generalized click here for detail

29.09.2006 se 16290

13.01.2006 se 16290

13.01.2006 se 16290

13.01.2006 se 16290

13.01.2006 se 16290

22.06.2006 se 16290

सुप्रीम कोर्ट अपडेट-

नीलम रानी मामले में सरकार की याचिका खारिज , जेबीटी टीचर्ज को देना होगा एरियर 

..................................

16290 court case copy

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neelam Rani vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 15 May 2013
CWP No. 11254 of 2010    

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                CWP No. 11254 of 2010 (O&M)
                                Date of Decision: 15.05.2013

Neelam Rani d/o Raj Roop                               ...Petitioner

                               Versus

The State of Haryana and others                        .Respondents


CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN

Present: Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate
         for the petitioner.

         Mr. Ashish Gupta, AAG Haryana
         for respondents No.1 to 5.

K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner's grievance in the writ petition is that she is being paid less than her juniors in State School Services. The petitioner's claim is fully vindicated by what is tabulated in the written statement at para 4 in the preliminary objections. It is clear from the tabulation that there had been an anomaly in pay structure caused in the scales of pay drawn as per the 6th pay Commission. The petitioner was drawing the salary which was less than her juniors in the JBT teachers cadre. The tabulation shows from 1.7.2009 up to 3.6.2012 her salary was less than her juniors namely Vipin Bajaj, Anu Sardana and Jeena Devi. The written statement makes an admission that the additional pay which the juniors were receiving shall be treated as personal to them and that efforts will be taken for adjusting the additional amount subsequent to 2015.
2. It could be no consolation for petitioner to be informed that the Government has proposed to take the same action for adjusting all the additional pay which were being given to the juniors some time in future. The petitioner is entitled to be stepped up in pay, an amount which the juniors were drawing so that her salary does not fall short of the salary which is earned by her juniors. The amount to be paid in excess over what is being received by the petitioner shall be calculated from 1.7.2009 to 30.6.2013. The exercise shall be undertaken within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and amount shall be paid to the petitioner with an interest of 6%.
3. The writ petition is allowed.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 15.05.2013 aarti