Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18870 (1.45 seconds)
Documents citing Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006

A.Sivakumar vs The Secretary To Government on 25 May, 2015

10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , cases of several daily- wage/ad hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularisation process. On the other hand, some government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight.
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Komala M vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2022

7. When we consider the prevailing scenario, it is painful to note that the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] has not been properly understood and rather wrongly applied by various State Governments. We have called for the data in the instant case to ensure as to how many employees were working on contract basis or ad hoc basis or daily-wage basis in different State departments. We can take judicial notice that widely aforesaid practice is being continued. Though this Court has emphasised that incumbents should be appointed on regular basis as per rules but new devise of making appointment on contract basis has been adopted, employment is offered on daily-
Karnataka High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 2 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Sri Mallappa Balappa Akkannavar S/O ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 November, 2025

7. When we consider the prevailing scenario, it is painful to note that the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] has not been properly understood and rather wrongly applied by various State Governments. We have called for the data in the instant case to ensure as to how many employees were working on contract basis or ad hoc basis or daily-wage basis in different State departments. We can take judicial notice that widely aforesaid practice is being continued. Though this Court has emphasised that incumbents should be appointed on regular basis as per rules but new devise of making appointment on contract basis has been adopted, employment is offered on daily-wage basis, etc. in exploitative forms.
Karnataka High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Jagadamba D/O K Ponnappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 December, 2025

7. When we consider the prevailing scenario, it is painful to note that the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] has not been properly understood and rather wrongly applied by various State Governments. We have called for the data in the instant case to ensure as to how many employees were working on contract basis or ad hoc basis or daily-wage basis in different State departments. We can take judicial notice that widely aforesaid practice is being continued. Though this Court has emphasised that incumbents should be appointed on regular basis as per rules but new devise of making appointment on contract basis has been adopted, employment is offered on daily-wage basis, etc. in exploitative forms.
Karnataka High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Gadadhar Rana vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 2 December, 2025

Relying upon Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , the High Court has further referred to the judgment in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari [(2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] which is considered by this Court and this Court has clearly held that Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] casts a duty upon the State Government to take steps to regularise the services of those irregularly appointed appointees, who had served for more than 10 years without the benefit or protection of any interim order. Further in the said case, this Court has declared that it has been clearly ordered that one-time settlement/measure should be taken within six months i.e. from 10-4-2006. With reference to the aforesaid decision the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent employees placed reliance upon Article 142 of the Constitution in support of the submission that order of the Supreme Court be respected and implemented in its true meaning and spirit. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court accepted the same and came to the conclusion that the claims of the respondent employees for regularisation in their posts are fit cases and they became unfortunate only because of the creation of the State of Jharkhand over which the employees had no control and could not have prevented creation of the State of Jharkhand and because of that reason only, one State cannot take a different stand with respect to the employees appointed by the same process. The State Government cannot throw the employees jobless after 30 years of their continuous service in public employment guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution, which would result in great injustice since their source of income will be taken away and thereby the employees and their families will suffer due to the arbitrary action of 13 the State Government of Jharkhand which deprived a person of life and liberty guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India."
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri. Dasarath Lakshman ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 November, 2025

7. When we consider the prevailing scenario, it is painful to note that the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] has not been properly understood and rather wrongly applied by various State Governments. We have called for the data in the instant case to ensure as to how many employees were working on contract basis or ad hoc basis or daily-wage basis in different State departments. We can take judicial notice that widely aforesaid practice is being continued. Though this Court has emphasised that incumbents should be appointed on regular basis as per rules but new devise of making appointment on contract basis has been adopted, employment is offered on daily-wage basis, etc. in exploitative forms.
Karnataka High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Shri. Vithal S/O. Iranna Subhanji vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 October, 2025

11. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The dates on which the petitioners entered employment is charted herein above. The dates are again not in dispute. The issue is whether these petitioners would become entitled to consideration of their cases for regularisation or otherwise. The petitioners were twice over before this Court seeking consideration of their cases for regularisation, which all come to be rejected by the impugned endorsements. The endorsement is that the petitioners had not completed 10 years of service as on the date of the rendering of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UMADEVI (3) (supra), which is on 10.04.2006. It is germane to notice that in identical circumstances this Court in Writ Petition No.107774 of 2023 and connected matters concerning a different Municipal Council had directed regularisation of those petitioners by the following order:
Karnataka High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Sri Nagesh S/O Hanamant Pujeri vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 October, 2025

11. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The dates on which the petitioners entered employment is charted herein above. The dates are again not in dispute. The issue is whether these petitioners would become entitled to consideration of their cases for regularisation or otherwise. The petitioners were twice over before this Court seeking consideration of their cases for regularisation, which all come to be rejected by the impugned endorsements. The endorsement is that the petitioners had not completed 10 years of service as on the date of the rendering of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UMADEVI (3) (supra), which is on 10.04.2006. It is germane to notice that in identical circumstances this Court in Writ Petition No.107774 of 2023 and connected matters concerning a different Municipal Council had directed regularisation of those petitioners by the following order:
Karnataka High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Smt. Nanda Baburao Mattalle vs State Of Karnataka on 17 November, 2025

We have called for the data in the instant case to ensure as to how many employees were working on contract basis or ad hoc basis or daily-wage basis in different State departments. We can take judicial notice that widely aforesaid practice is being continued. Though this Court has emphasised that incumbents should be appointed on regular basis as per rules but new devise of making appointment on contract basis has been adopted, employment is offered on daily- wage basis, etc. in exploitative forms. This situation was not envisaged by Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753]. The prime intendment of the decision was that the employment process should be by fair means and not by back door entry and in the available pay scale.
Karnataka High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Shri Shankaragouda S/O Rayanagouda ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2025

4. The petitioner is appointed as a Sanitary Inspector in the Town Municipal Council, Athani pursuant to a resolution of the Council, owing to a vacancy that existed in the Municipality of the post of Sanitary Inspector. The petitioner works -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15864 WP No. 103209 of 2023 HC-KAR continuously for close to 18 years and then stakes a claim for regularisation of his employment in the said Municipality on the score that he has completed more than 10 years of service and is entitled to be regularised in the teeth of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi (3) and others1. The representation was not considered. Therefore, the petitioner approaches this Court in Writ Petition No.105276/2015. The writ petition comes to be disposed on 08.06.2015 with a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi. It is replied by an endorsement contending that the petitioner has not completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006 and therefore, his case cannot be considered for regularisation of his services.
Karnataka High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next