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

SH. N.K. SHARMA versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA AND ORS.

Decided
1 May 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, SUJATA V. MANOHAR (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 241 · 1996 INSC 608
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

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.

This appeal by special leave arises against the order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh made on 9.12.1994 in C.W.P. No. 435/92. The appellant was initially appointed a' a Store Munshi on 4.10.71 in the work-charged establishment. Later, he had two promotions, last of them being Stor.e Keeper in the regular cadre on December 31, 1980 in the pay-scale of Rs. 260-430 w.e.f. 1.1.1981. He was later promoted on 1.1.1986 in the grade of Rs. 330-560. Subsequently, by virtue of negotiation with the Union, the pay-scales and the promotional avenues of the work charged employees, who could not get promotion, were rationalised and by modified scheme dated September 5, 1988, the respondents had adopted rationalisation scheme and the scales of pay. Para (b) of the scheme envisages that although appointment to the regular cadre will he effective from the date of such appointment, service rendered in work charged posts in the same pos\ and scale of pay will count towards inter-se seniority in the regular cadre for the purpose of promotion to next higher scale of pay subject to line of promotion being available.

pp. 241–242, margin F

It is not in dispute that the appellant earlier was promoted on selection and became a regular employee. Though the work charged employees who could not become the regular employees have the benefit of rationalisation scheme referred to hereinbcfore, since the appellant was in a lower scale of pay in the work-charged establishment that was mentioned in the rationalisation scheme, he cannot claim the higher scale of pay or promotional post on par with his erstwhile juniors/workcharged employees. The High Court, therefore, has rightly pointed out that though the appellant is entitled to count his service rendered as workcharged employee for the purpose • of seniority and promotion, as far as the grade seniority is concerned, he cannot get the same benefit as he was appointed in the grade of Rs. 260-350 on September 1, 1973 and regularised w.c.f. l.1.1981 in the scale of Rs. 260-430 which is lower pay-scale than what was rationalised. Under these circumstance, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the High Court.

p. 242, margin B

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No. costs. R.P. Appeal dismissed.

p. 242, margin E