Mobile View
Advanced Search Search Tips
View Complete document
Satbir Singh And Others vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 11 October, 2013
Showing the contexts in which n i act appears in the document
Change context size

iv)While making recommendations, the financial condition of the State, having regard to the provisions of the Punjab Fiscal Responsibilities and Budget Management Act, 2003, be kept in view. To curb non-productive expenditure, the Commission shall suggest a cap on expenditure on salaries, wages and pensions as a percentage of Revenue Receipts of the State and other economy measures to fund the additional expenditure on the implementation of its recommendations. While doing so, new staffing structures/norms may be suggested, having regard to changed role of the Government and I.T. application;

particular pay scale/higher pay scale for a certain category of employees. However, such recommendations would not be binding upon the State Government. It would be open for the State Government to deviate from the recommendations made by the Commission but on a rational and cogent basis. In KS Krishnaswamy v. Union of India and another, 2007(1) SCT 353, 353 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: "It is well settled principle of law that recommendations of the Pay Commission are subject to the acceptance/rejection with modifications of the appropriate Government." 22. In Union of India v. P.N.Menon and others , 1994(4) SCT 91, a question arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to fixing of cut-off date for payment of gratuity and pension which had been stipulated as 30th September, 1997. While repelling the challenge to the fixation of such date, it was observed as under: "Whenever the Government or an authority which can be held to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 Malik Sushama Rani of the Constitution, frames a scheme for persons who 2013.10.11 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this