Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 426 (4.17 seconds)
Documents citing B.N. Nagarajan And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 3 May, 1979

R.Senthilkumar vs The State Through The on 20 August, 2019

(1967) 1 SCR 128] , R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah [(1972) 1 SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional 63/73 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.2561/2014 requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”(emphasis in original) A case of regularisation which thus attained finality and was not sub judice would not come within the purview of exception to the rule contained in Para 53 of the said judgment. The appellants' case, thus, does not come within the purview thereof. Only those cases where regularisations had already been made were not to be reopened. It is not in dispute that services of the appellants were terminated as far back as in 1987 and they did not question the legality or validity of the said order.
Madras High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

P.V.Muruganandam vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 15 February, 2019

“17. Dr. Pillay, however, strongly relied upon the observations made in Para 53 in Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] which reads as under: (SCC p. 42, para 53) “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa [AIR 1967 SC 1071 : (1967) 1 SCR 128] , R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah [(1972) 1 SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The http://www.judis.nic.in 91 process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”(emphasis in original) A case of regularisation which thus attained finality and was not sub judice would not come within the purview of exception to the rule contained in Para 53 of the said judgment. The appellants' case, thus, does not come within the purview thereof. Only those cases where regularisations had already been made were not to be reopened. It is not in dispute that services of the appellants were terminated as far back as in 1987 and they did not question the legality or validity of the said order.
Madras High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

A.Ruban vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 15 February, 2019

42, para 53) “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa [AIR 1967 SC 1071 : (1967) 1 SCR 128] , R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah [(1972) 1 SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten http://www.judis.nic.in 88 years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”(emphasis in original) A case of regularisation which thus attained finality and was not sub judice would not come within the purview of exception to the rule contained in Para 53 of the said judgment. The appellants' case, thus, does not come within the purview thereof. Only those cases where regularisations had already been made were not to be reopened. It is not in dispute that services of the appellants were terminated as far back as in 1987 and they did not question the legality or validity of the said order.
Madras High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

A.Glory Marry vs The Secretary To Government on 27 February, 2019

The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”(emphasis in original) A case of regularisation which thus attained finality and was not sub judice would not come within the purview of exception http://www.judis.nic.in 92 to the rule contained in Para 53 of the said judgment. The appellants' case, thus, does not come within the purview thereof. Only those cases where regularisations had already been made were not to be reopened. It is not in dispute that services of the appellants were terminated as far back as in 1987 and they did not question the legality or validity of the said order.
Madras High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 1 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

M.Mahalingam vs The Engineer In Chief on 12 December, 2017

17. Dr. Pillay, however, strongly relied upon the observations made in Para 53 in Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] which reads as under: (SCC p. 42, para 53) 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa [AIR 1967 SC 1071 : (1967) 1 SCR 128] , R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah [(1972) 1 SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.(emphasis in original) A case of regularisation which thus attained finality and was not sub judice would not come within the purview of exception to the rule contained in Para 53 of the said judgment. The appellants' case, thus, does not come within the purview thereof. Only those cases where regularisations had already been made were not to be reopened. It is not in dispute that services of the appellants were terminated as far back as in 1987 and they did not question the legality or validity of the said order.
Madras High Court Cites 71 - Cited by 3 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

S.Thangadurai vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 March, 2019

The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”(emphasis in original) A case of regularisation which thus attained finality and was not sub judice would not come within the purview of exception to the rule contained in Para 53 of the said judgment. The appellants' case, thus, does not come within http://www.judis.nic.in the purview thereof. Only those cases where regularisations 90 had already been made were not to be reopened. It is not in dispute that services of the appellants were terminated as far back as in 1987 and they did not question the legality or validity of the said order.
Madras High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

B.Nagarajan vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 7 February, 2018

?17. Dr. Pillay, however, strongly relied upon the observations made in Para 53 in Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] which reads as under: (SCC p. 42, para 53) ?53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa [AIR 1967 SC 1071 : (1967) 1 SCR 128] , R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah [(1972) 1 SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.?(emphasis in original) A case of regularisation which thus attained finality and was not sub judice would not come within the purview of exception to the rule contained in Para 53 of the said judgment. The appellants' case, thus, does not come within the purview thereof. Only those cases where regularisations had already been made were not to be reopened. It is not in dispute that services of the appellants were terminated as far back as in 1987 and they did not question the legality or validity of the said order.
Madras High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

P.Deivendran vs The Chairman on 10 January, 2018

?17. Dr. Pillay, however, strongly relied upon the observations made in Para 53 in Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] which reads as under: (SCC p. 42, para 53) ?53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa [AIR 1967 SC 1071 : (1967) 1 SCR 128] , R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah [(1972) 1 SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.?(emphasis in original) A case of regularisation which thus attained finality and was not sub judice would not come within the purview of exception to the rule contained in Para 53 of the said judgment. The appellants' case, thus, does not come within the purview thereof. Only those cases where regularisations had already been made were not to be reopened. It is not in dispute that services of the appellants were terminated as far back as in 1987 and they did not question the legality or validity of the said order.
Madras High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 1 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

P.Dhandayuthapani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 March, 2019

“17. Dr. Pillay, however, strongly relied upon the observations made in Para 53 in Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] which reads as under: (SCC p. 42, para 53) “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa [AIR 1967 SC 1071 : (1967) 1 SCR 128] , R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah [(1972) 1 SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services http://www.judis.nic.in 99 of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”(emphasis in original) A case of regularisation which thus attained finality and was not sub judice would not come within the purview of exception to the rule contained in Para 53 of the said judgment. The appellants' case, thus, does not come within the purview thereof. Only those cases where regularisations had already been made were not to be reopened. It is not in dispute that services of the appellants were terminated as far back as in 1987 and they did not question the legality or validity of the said order.
Madras High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

N.Johnrose vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 6 November, 2020

2006 SCC (L&S) 753] which reads as under: (SCC p. 42, 80/86 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.6815 and 6847 of 2014 para 53) “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa [AIR 1967 SC 1071 : (1967) 1 SCR 128] , R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah [(1972) 1 SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the 81/86 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.6815 and 6847 of 2014 constitutional scheme.”(emphasis in original) A case of regularisation which thus attained finality and was not sub judice would not come within the purview of exception to the rule contained in Para 53 of the said judgment. The appellants' case, thus, does not come within the purview thereof. Only those cases where regularisations had already been made were not to be reopened. It is not in dispute that services of the appellants were terminated as far back as in 1987 and they did not question the legality or validity of the said order.
Madras High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next