Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 427 (0.92 seconds)
Documents citing State Of U.P. And Ors. vs Putti Lal on 21 February, 2002

Rakesh Shukla vs Principal Secy. Forest And Others on 11 January, 2019

26. Before this Court learned Standing Counsel could not dispute that in appeal preferred before Supreme Court against Division Bench judgment in Chanchal Kumar Tiwari vs. Hari Shankar (supra) Supreme Court had also taken a view that payment of salary to a daily wage employee should have been made at the minimum of pay scale and to that extent direction issued in State of U.P. and others vs. Putti Lal (supra) would be applicable, therefore, he did not dispute that so far this matter is concerned, said direction will have to be followed by State and there is no other way.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 9 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Mohan Swaroop And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 23 March, 2021

13. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest filed yet another supplementary counter affidavit on 11.10.2018, running into 210 pages. The Divisional Forest Officer, Pilibhit also filed an affidavit on 11.11.2018. It was in this backdrop that matter was fixed for hearing before the Court on 17.11.2018. It would also be relevant to note that much of the resistance to petitioners' claim was put forth by the respondents on the ground that previous orders of the Supreme Court were not final, and that the Apex Court was seized of the issue relating to entitlement of a daily wage employee to receive minimum of pay scale. The previous judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Putti Lal (supra) was questioned in light of certain later judgments of this Court and of the Supreme Court of India.
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 17 - A K Mishra - Full Document

Ravi Shankar Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And Others on 25 October, 2013

8. Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that unless a list of daily wage employees engaged, in Forest Department, before 29.06.1991, for the purpose of regularisation, is prepared, in order of seniority, Rules 2001 cannot be applied and implemented truly. In the present case, since no list has been prepared, this indicates how respondent authorities have acted illegally so as to deny benefit of regularisation to petitioner and similarly placed other employees. He reiterated various grounds, as set up in the writ petition and mentioned above, placing reliance on Apex Court's decision in State of U.P. and others Vs. Putti Lal (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 3 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Ram Naresh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 25 October, 2013

4. The facts in brief as per petitioner's version in the writ petition, are, that the petitioner was engaged as a Group 'D' employee in February, 1989 and continuing till the date of filing of the writ petition. He claims to be eligible for regularisation as per directions of Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs. Putti Lal (Supra) and also in view of statutory provisions contained in the Rules, 2001.
Allahabad High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Chhavi Ram vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 16 April, 2024

We are concerned only with the principle laid down by this Court initially in Putti Lal [State of U.P. v. Putti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1819] relating to persons who are similarly situated to the appellants and later affirmed in Jagjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 1] that temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in service.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A Moin - Full Document

Ram Sukh Yadav S/O Jag Deo Yadav, ... vs State Of U.P. Through The Principal ... on 10 April, 2007

In these circumstances, this Court fail to appreciate as to how it can be said that the issue pertaining to seniority had already attained finality by virtue of the judgment in Putti Lal (supra) and Rule 7 cannot be said to have deprived the petitioners of certain benefits which had already accrued to the petitioners. The argument is thoroughly misconceived and does not arise at all In the present case, and, appears to have been made in sheer desperation.
Allahabad High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Yash Pal Singh vs Uoi & Ors. on 20 December, 2022

We are concerned only with the principle laid down by this Court initially in Putti Lal [State of U.P. v. Putti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1819] relating to persons who are similarly situated to the appellants and later affirmed in Jagjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 1] that temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in service.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Son Of Sri D.P. ... vs Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest ... on 17 October, 2005

In case the petitioners are still in employment, they shall continue to earn the minimum of pay scale as directed by the Apex Court in Puti Lal's case. The question of filling of backlog vacancies by Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates by direct recruitment under the Rules of 1980, is not connected with the present case. The petitioners shall have right to appointment on all the vacancies excluding those which are to be filled up in accordance with U.P. Act No. 4 of 1994. The direction to fill up back log vacancies provided by U.P. Act No. 4 of 1994 are not in conflict with the process of regularisation, which does not restrict and stop any direct recruitment made on the vacancies available for a particular quota in accordance with Reservation Rules. The interim order with regard to stay on the recruitment of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates by any of such recruitment on the vacancies for such categories are discharged.
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 7 - S Ambwani - Full Document

Ram Naresh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 9 December, 2020

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is continuously working on the post of Chaukidar on daily wage basis w.e.f. 23.01.1995 and has completed 18 years of service on 22.1.2013. He further submits that neither any complaint nor any enquiry is pending against the petitioner, but the respondent-department deliberately neither regularized his services nor provided the minimum wages as per Rules in spite of the interim order of this Court dated 19.03.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the forest department identically situated persons, who are working on daily wages in the department, the Division Bench of this Court directed to regularize their service and the order of this Court was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3634 of 1998 (State of U.P. vs. Putti Lal) with slight modification and in the pending S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the U.P. Regularization of Daily Wage Appointment on Group-D Post Rules, 2001, has been framed. Further submission is that these Rules are also applicable in all the Department of State of U.P. including the Rural Engineering Services Department. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that those candidates, who had rendered 10 years or more services, should be regularized and should be paid minimum of regular pay scale till they are regularized while interpreting the Rules, 2001. He further submits that on 11.01.2010, the respondent-Director Chief Engineer, Gramin Ahiyantram Sewa, U.P. Lucknow has prepared the seniority list of work charge/daily wager employees as per Rules in which the name of the petitioner was find place at Serial No.206-A. Copy of Senior List has been annexed as Annexure No. RA-3 to the rejoinder affidavit.
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S K Yadav - Full Document

State Of Uttarakhand & Others ... vs Harish Chandra Sati & Others on 11 December, 2018

11. In terms of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the qualification criteria prescribed in 6 the 2003 Rules cannot be applied to those who were appointed before 29.06.1991; and it is the qualification, prevalent during the relevant time when these employees were initially appointed as daily wage workers or seasonal workers or casual workers, which can be stipulated as the qualification required for appointment to these posts. We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to set aside the order under appeal and, instead, direct the appellants to consider the case of the respondents-writ petitioners strictly in accordance with the 2003 Rules, as clarified by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Putti Lal, with utmost expedition, and in any event not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - L P Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next