Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

A.J. JOSEPH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Decided
8 January 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 213 · 1996 INSC 33

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 213, margin E

This appeal is filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench dated march 11, 1987 made in ND OANo. 12/A&N/ 87. The appellant claimed higher scale of pay as Head Compounder. Though the Health Department in Andaman & Nicobar Island had recommended to consider case fOr grant of special pay, the Government after elaborate consideration in proceedings dt. April 21, 1976 considered that question of prescribing any higher scale of pay for the post of Head Compounder in Andaman & Nicobar Island does not arise."The Tribunal has held that this being a policy decision, the Tribunal cannot give the direction to prescribe the higher scale of pay to the Head Compounder.

p. 213, margin F

Ms. Lily Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant relying upon Fundamental Rule 9(25) Clause ?(iii) contendd that the appellant is entitled to the special pay on her with others which is being denied to the appellant. Shri A.N. Jayaram, the learned Additional Soldtor General appearing for the respondents stated that this grievance was not rr.ade by the appellant at any point of time. As a fact all those who are working in Andaman & Nicobar Island, as per the Fundamental Rules, are being paid Ardaman special pay and the appellant is not discriminated on that account. Accepting the contention of the counsel for the respondents, we are of the considered view that the grievance of the appellant is not well founded. It is needless to mention that whatever direction that have been given by the Government oflndia under the Fundamental Rules for payment of special pay to the employees \\ orking in Andaman & Nicobar Island, they are entitled for the same and accodingly such special pay be paid to aH the eligible persons including the appell.mt.

pp. 213–214, margin H

The appeal is dismissed with the above observa:ions. G.N. Appeal dismissed.

p. 214, margin C