Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  


This Page To:

[ In the Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 11781 of 1996 with Civil Appeal No. 11782 of 1996 . ] 26/04/2001
Advocate(s) :
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-

  Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Represented by its General Manager Versus Shanthi & Others,   28/04/2017.  

  G. Rama Mohan Rao & Another Versus The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep, by its Principal Secretary and Chairman, Agricultural, Marketing & Cooperative Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Another,   07/03/2017.  

  Genba Laxman Pawagi & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others,   02/03/2017.  

  Savitri Devi Versus Mohinder Pal & Others,   19/12/2016.  

  Kubja Devi Versus Ishwar Dass,   24/11/2016.  

  M/s. Cosmo Ferrites Ltd. Versus State of H.P. & Others,   07/10/2016.  

  State of H.P. & Others Versus Rajesh Chander Sood & Others,   28/09/2016.  

  Yogeshwari Shikshan Sanstha, Through its Secretary & Another Versus Sujata Prakash Ansarwadkar & Another,   27/09/2016.  

  Promil Goyal Versus State of H.P. & Others,   22/08/2016.  

  National Insurance Company Limited Versus Dhani Devi & Others,   09/08/2016.  

  Dinesh Kumar Versus Puran Singh & Others,   05/08/2016.  

  Bhim Sen Dutta Versus Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank & Another,   25/05/2016.  

  Patel Ketuman Natvarbhai & Others Versus Secretary - Revenue Department & Others,   06/05/2016.  

  Sheji versus Muhammedali Shehabudeen,   08/02/2016.  

  V. Arunkumar Versus The Information Kerala Mission (IKM) (Under The Local Self Government) rep by its Executive Chairman & Director & Others,   21/10/2015.  

  Coromandel Mining & Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Union of India & Others,   11/09/2015.  

  Sher Mohammed Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others,   04/09/2015.  

  Mani Devi Versus Baldev & Another,   07/08/2015.  

  Manisha & Others Versus Umakant Marotrao Kolhe & Another,   06/08/2015.  

  Savitri Devi Versus Bharti Filling Station & Another,   28/07/2015.  

  Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employee's Provident Fund Organisation Versus R.C. Gupta & Others ,   22/07/2015.  

  Pushpalata Versus Ganesh & Another,   16/07/2015.  

  New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Harsh Mishra & Others,   29/06/2015.  

  Hem Ram & Another Versus Krishan Chand & Another,   29/05/2015.  

  Divisional Engineer Telecom Project (BSNL) & Another Versus Chet Ram & Another,   29/05/2015.  

  Puri Construction P. Ltd. & Others Versus Larsen & Toubro Ltd. & Another,   30/04/2015.  

  Delhi Transport Corporation Versus Kartari Devi & Others,   23/04/2015.  

  Sunitha Venkatram & Another Versus Divya Rayapati,   30/03/2015.  

  Union of India & Others Versus Amitava Paul & Others,   04/03/2015.  

  Prabhat Pan & Others Versus The State of West Bengal & Others,   25/02/2015.  

  Ishwar Chandra Prusti Versus R.T.O., Sambalpur & Others,   05/02/2015.  

  Manoj Misra & Another Versus Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests & Others,   13/01/2015.  

  Vezic D'Costa @ Vajic D'Costa & Others Versus Manuelino Fernandes Sales & Others,   16/12/2014.  

  Planters Forum, A Private Trust represented by its Secretary & Another Versus State of Kerala, represented by The Chief Secretary To Government & Another,   17/11/2014.  

  Panchunath Samal Versus Union of India & Others,   11/11/2014.  

  G. Venkateshwarlu Versus APSRTC represented by its M.D. & Another,   16/10/2014.  

  Himachal Road Transport Corporation Versus Parveen Kumari & Others,   19/09/2014.  

  Muthukumaran Educational Trust & Another Versus The Secretary to Government & Others,   11/09/2014.  

  Manohar Lal Sharma Versus The Principal Secretary & Others,   25/08/2014.  

  Karambir Nain & Another Versus The State of Haryana & Others,   11/07/2014.  

  M/s. Buhari Sons Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director M.B. Haja Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Principal Secretary to Government & Others,   12/06/2014.  

  Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Versus Parshotam Singh,   28/05/2014.  

  K. Veeraraghavan Versus The Secretary to Government, School Education Department & Others,   14/05/2014.  

  K. Veeraraghavan Versus The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, & Others,   14/05/2014.  

  Defence Research Education Society & Another Versus Prescribed Authoriy, Labour Court, Uttarakhand, Dehradun & Another,   21/02/2014.  

  S. Jagan Reddy (Died) per L.R. Versus Managing Director, APSRTC & Others,   18/02/2014.  

  Hasanate Taheriyyah Fidayyiah through its Trustee Shri Zohairbhai Versus Mahesh,   18/01/2014.  

  A-2459 The Coats Viyella Employees Co-operative Housing Societies Ltd. & Another Versus Harvey Nagar Residents Welfare Association, rep. by its Secretary & Others,   28/11/2013.  

  Bhavya Health Services Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Dr. D. Pavan Kumar Versus Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited (APGENCO), represented by its Managing Director & Others,   01/11/2013.  

  Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Another Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board,   03/10/2013.  

#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2001 (3) CLR 218"  

        This appeal by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation Conductors Union is directed against an order of the H.P. Administrative Tribunal Shimla rejecting the application of the Union. The employees under the Himachal Pradesh State Government who had been appointed as Cleaner-cum-Conductors in Grade-IV continued as such under the Corporation when the Corporation was created in the year 1974. Under the Government there were two categories of posts namely Conductor in Class III and Cleaner-cum-Conductor in Class IV. The qualification for appointment and pay scales were different. In 1978 there was a complete fusion and all of them became Conductors. The question for consideration is whether in drawing up the seniority list of Conductors the services rendered as Cleaner-cum-Conductor under the Government can be tagged on ? The Tribunal on consideration of the qualification for appointment the service conditions as well as all other germane factors came to hold that there is no rationale behind the claim of these Cleaner-cum-Conductors to seek the relief that their services rendered as Cleaner-cum-Conductor should be counted for the purpose of their seniority in the cadre of Conductor. The Tribunal having rejected the application the present appeal has been preferred.Mr. Mahabir Singh the learned appearing for the Union vehemently contended that these Cleaner-cum-Conductors having discharged the same duties as those of Conductors even assuming that they were in a lower grade their services ought to have been counted for the purpose of seniority once there is a fusion. He further contends that even the so-called KLM formula which was evolved for ameliorating the grievances in a matter of fusion had not been looked into and since these Cleaner-cum-Conductors as well as the Conductors nature of duties were same and the responsibilities and power exercised are also same they are entitled to claim their past services as Cleaner-cum-Conductor for being counted for the purpose of seniority as Conductors. He concedes that so far as Clauses C and D of KLM formula namely minimum qualification prescribed as well as the salary for the posts was different. But he contends that most of these employees did have the minimum qualification even though it might not be the prescribed one. In support of his contention that the duties that were being discharged are same he relies upon the extract regarding duties and responsibilities of each function issued on 1.7.1976. The question for consideration is whether these Cleaner-cum-Conductors having been appointed to Grade IV post can claim the past services rendered in the said grade for the purpose of their seniority in Grade III which was the grade of Conductor to which grade they came only because of a fusion of both the cadres in the year 1978. The answer must be in negative inasmuch as right from the inception even under the Government the post of Conductor and the post of Cleaner-cum-Conductor were borne in two different grades and belong to two different cadres and therefore by mere nomenclature the expression Cleaner-cum-Conductor cannot be held to be the same as Conductor. In the aforesaid premises we see no infirmity with the impugned order of the Tribunal requiring our interference. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.Civil Appeal No. 11782 of 1996.In view of our order in Civil Appeal No. 11781 of 1996 this appeal stands dismissed.