Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing Badri And Ors. vs Union Territory And Ors. on 28 July, 2003

Smt. Sharda Devi vs Director General Of Post on 19 April, 2011

5. At the hearing, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents vide their own communication dated 30.11.1992 addressed to the Heads of Postal Circles advising to treat the casual labourers after rendering three years of continuous service with temporary status would be at par with temporary Group D employees and as such would be entitled to such benefits as are admissible to Group D employees on regular basis. The applicant herein rendered more than 3 years service with temporary status. Furthermore, all the officials were advised even to process regularization of all eligible employees with three years continuous service with temporary status. Much emphasis was led by the applicants counsel on the case of Badri and others vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and ors., 2004(1) AISLJ (CAT) 204, wherein it has been inter alia held that plea of no vacancies hence no regularization is only a camouflage to deny regularization. Persons are working for years so work exists and they are getting the pay and allowances as regular staff, as such creation of posts will entail no extra financial burden. The directions were issued in that case to regularise such employees. The important points involved in that case are as follows. Merely because Scheme envisages existence of vacancies for regularization, one cannot be denied regularization. The Government must create posts to regularise eligible persons. Existence of long continuous service leads to presumption of existence of vacancies. Financial Constraints of Government is no ground to refuse regularization. State should take up only that much work as is within its financial capacity. Non-existence of vacancies is no ground to deny regularization. Denying retiral benefits to casual labour is anti socialistic and also an unfair labour practice. The learned counsel for the applicant has taken us through the order in details contending that the deceased employee having served for 28 years ought to have been regularised even without there being any vacancy for it was incumbent upon the respondents to create vacancy for such purpose.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Unknown vs Union Territory on 31 March, 2016

4. It is also stated that the claim of the applicant for consideration of the service rendered by him on daily wage work-charged basis for the purpose of determination of pension and other retiral benefits is covered by a number of judgements rendered by this Tribunal and upheld by the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court as well as the Apex Court. Some of the cases that have been cited are OA No. 60/CH/2002 titled Badri & Ors. Vs. UT Chandigarh & Ors. decided on 28.07.2003 and OA No. 1072-CH-2002 titled Raj Pati Vs. UOI that was preferred by the widow of a work-charged employee who died after retirement without regularization of service. Besides, even daily wage workers who have rendered ten years service and whose services were never regularized, were held entitled to pension and other retiral benefits.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1