Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (2.69 seconds)

Ajay Kumar Verma (Guard) & Ors. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 10 October, 2011

3. That though the petitioners had been appointed as Coaching Clerks, however, they sought grant of temporary status and regularization after a period of three years, as according to them, they were recruited in 1979 and relied on a decision of the Tribunal dated 4th June, 1990 in the matter of Sh.Mohinder Kumar & Ors v. Union of WP(C) No.7395/2011 Page 2 of 13 India & Ors. The petitioners also relied on the order dated 30th April, 2004 in an original application being O.A No.551/2002 wherein the Mobile Booking Clerks were directed to be treated as regularized after completion of three years of continuous service from the date of those employees who had initially joined as Mobile Clerks. The petitioners had made a representation seeking grant of temporary status on completion of four months of continuous service since the day they were appointed as daily wagers and to regularize their service on completion of the three years period, though they had only been appointed to the regular post of Coaching Clerks in 1985 through proper selection. The representation of the petitioners was not considered, entailing the filing of an original application No.870/2009 seeking direction to the respondents to consider and decide their representation. The original application No.870/2009 was decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal by an order dated 9th April, 2009 directing the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioners as per law. The respondents through its Divisional Railway Manager decided the representation of the petitioner by letter No.729-E/ET-1/Coaching/AKV dated 29th June, 2009. The respondents rejected the representation and observed that the petitioners were recruited directly as Coaching Clerks through the Railway Service Commission, Allahabad and Muzaffarpur in the year 1985, though they had also worked as Mobile Booking Clerks for a certain periods but they had not been regularized from the post of Mobile Booking Clerks to Coaching Clerks and consequently, the WP(C) No.7395/2011 Page 3 of 13 benefit of circular dated 24th August, 1990 issued by the Headquarters Office could not be extended to the petitioners. The respondent in their order dated 29th June, 2009 observed as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Delhi Development Authority vs Smt. Prakash Malik on 20 July, 2010

7. These submissions have been countered by the learned counsel for the respondents. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this court in WP ( C ) No. 2004/1997 titled as Sh. Vikramjit Kapoor Vs. Union of India. It is stated that in this case the question of the user of a residential plot as a guest house which as per the terms of the lease was to be used for a residential purposes only had been raised. The DDA had claimed misuser charges w.e.f. 25.07.1989. The MPD-2001 had been promulgated w.e.f. 01.08.1990.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - I Kaur - Full Document
1