Skip to content


G.S. Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition Nos. 420 of 1981 and 2747 of 1982
Judge
Reported inAIR1983SC1224; 1984Supp(1)SCC607
AppellantG.S. Agarwal;smt. Sabajmala Jain
RespondentState of U.P. and ors.;state of U.P. and ors.
Cases ReferredIn Ram Narayan Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh. Writ Petitions Nos.
Excerpt:
- labour & services pay parity: [altamas kabir & markandey katju, jj] fixation of pay--withdrawal of benefit--petitioner along with his friend filed petition for step up pay to that of juniors - benefit was only given to friend of petitioner - no benefit given to petitioner - petitioner's petition dismissed as infructuous - held, high court was bound to deal with claim of both petitioners. senior cannot be paid lesser salary than his juniors. object of petition was to bring pay par with juniors. high court erred in not addressing claim of petitioner. petitioner is entitled to benefits of pay parity. when writ petition is jointly filed, the prayer therein should not be confined to one petitioner alone only......the said dues action was taken against them under the u.p. government electrical undertakings (dues recovery) act, 1958 read with section 279 of the u.p. zamindari abolition and land reforms act, 1950. apprehending that the revenue authorities concerned would proceed against them to recover the said dues by their arrest and detention under section 279(1)(b) read with section 281 of the u.p. zamindari abolition and land reforms act, 1950 the petitioners have filed the above petitions challenging inter alia the constitutional validity of the process of arrest and detention prescribed by section 279(1)(b) of the u.p. zamindari abolition and land reforms act, 1950. in ram narayan agarwal v. state of uttar pradesh. writ petitions nos. 1110 of 1980 etc. etc. decided today : (reported in.....
Judgment:

E.S. Venkataramiah, J.

1. Each of the petitioners in the above two petitions is liable to pay certain dues to the U.P. State Electricity Board. In order to recover the said dues action was taken against them under the U.P. Government Electrical Undertakings (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958 read with Section 279 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Apprehending that the revenue authorities concerned would proceed against them to recover the said dues by their arrest and detention under Section 279(1)(b) read with Section 281 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 the petitioners have filed the above petitions challenging inter alia the constitutional validity of the process of arrest and detention prescribed by Section 279(1)(b) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. In Ram Narayan Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh. Writ Petitions Nos. 1110 of 1980 etc. etc. decided today : (reported in 1983 Tax LR 3008. we have upheld the constitutional validity of the said provisions. The only point pressed before us in these two petitions being the one relating to the validity of the above provisions, we dismiss the above two petitions. It is open to the revenue authorities to proceed against the petitioners to recover the amount due and payable by them in accordance with law by issuing a fresh process in the light of the judgment delivered in Ram Narayan Agarwal's case (supra). No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //