Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.79 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India Through The Secretary And ... vs Smt. Lalita V. Mertia on 8 October, 2021

Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 20 September, 2022

25. Thus, the settled position of law now is that no person appointed on temporary/casual/adhoc/contractual basis can claim regularization or permanency in service. A one time exception has been carved out by the Apex Court in para No. 53 of the judgment in the case of Umadevi, wherein irregular appointments of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts where ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2022 04:09:23 ::: 18 wp_4546.16.odt employees have worked for 10 years or more without intervention of Court orders have been permitted to be regularized. This Court at its Principal Seat in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Smt. Lalita V. Mertia in Writ Petition No. 1338 of 2015 decided on 08 October 2021 has held that the said exception made in the case of Umadevi is a one time exception and applicable only in respect of employees who have completed ten years as on 10th April 2006. It is held that it was never the intention of the Apex Court to permit regularization of those who had not completed 10 years of service as on the date of rendering of the judgment.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 5 - S V Marne - Full Document

Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 20 September, 2022

25. Thus, the settled position of law now is that no person appointed on temporary/casual/adhoc/contractual basis can claim regularization or permanency in service. A one time exception has been carved out by the Apex Court in para No. 53 of the judgment in the case of Umadevi, wherein irregular appointments of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts where ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2022 04:09:12 ::: 18 wp_4546.16.odt employees have worked for 10 years or more without intervention of Court orders have been permitted to be regularized. This Court at its Principal Seat in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Smt. Lalita V. Mertia in Writ Petition No. 1338 of 2015 decided on 08 October 2021 has held that the said exception made in the case of Umadevi is a one time exception and applicable only in respect of employees who have completed ten years as on 10th April 2006. It is held that it was never the intention of the Apex Court to permit regularization of those who had not completed 10 years of service as on the date of rendering of the judgment.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S V Marne - Full Document

Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 20 September, 2022

25. Thus, the settled position of law now is that no person appointed on temporary/casual/adhoc/contractual basis can claim regularization or permanency in service. A one time exception has been carved out by the Apex Court in para No. 53 of the judgment in the case of Umadevi, wherein irregular appointments of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts where ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2022 04:09:06 ::: 18 wp_4546.16.odt employees have worked for 10 years or more without intervention of Court orders have been permitted to be regularized. This Court at its Principal Seat in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Smt. Lalita V. Mertia in Writ Petition No. 1338 of 2015 decided on 08 October 2021 has held that the said exception made in the case of Umadevi is a one time exception and applicable only in respect of employees who have completed ten years as on 10th April 2006. It is held that it was never the intention of the Apex Court to permit regularization of those who had not completed 10 years of service as on the date of rendering of the judgment.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S V Marne - Full Document

Vaibhav Bapurao Aundhakar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 20 September, 2022

25. Thus, the settled position of law now is that no person appointed on temporary/casual/adhoc/contractual basis can claim regularization or permanency in service. A one time exception has been carved out by the Apex Court in para No. 53 of the judgment in the case of Umadevi, wherein irregular appointments of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts where ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2022 04:09:34 ::: 18 wp_4546.16.odt employees have worked for 10 years or more without intervention of Court orders have been permitted to be regularized. This Court at its Principal Seat in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Smt. Lalita V. Mertia in Writ Petition No. 1338 of 2015 decided on 08 October 2021 has held that the said exception made in the case of Umadevi is a one time exception and applicable only in respect of employees who have completed ten years as on 10th April 2006. It is held that it was never the intention of the Apex Court to permit regularization of those who had not completed 10 years of service as on the date of rendering of the judgment.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S V Marne - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra And Another vs Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar And Others on 20 September, 2022

25. Thus, the settled position of law now is that no person appointed on temporary/casual/adhoc/contractual basis can claim regularization or permanency in service. A one time exception has been carved out by the Apex Court in para No. 53 of the judgment in the case of Umadevi, wherein irregular appointments of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts where ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2022 04:09:17 ::: 18 wp_4546.16.odt employees have worked for 10 years or more without intervention of Court orders have been permitted to be regularized. This Court at its Principal Seat in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Smt. Lalita V. Mertia in Writ Petition No. 1338 of 2015 decided on 08 October 2021 has held that the said exception made in the case of Umadevi is a one time exception and applicable only in respect of employees who have completed ten years as on 10th April 2006. It is held that it was never the intention of the Apex Court to permit regularization of those who had not completed 10 years of service as on the date of rendering of the judgment.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S V Marne - Full Document

Rahul Sandu Ankushe And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 20 September, 2022

25. Thus, the settled position of law now is that no person appointed on temporary/casual/adhoc/contractual basis can claim regularization or permanency in service. A one time exception has been carved out by the Apex Court in para No. 53 of the judgment in the case of Umadevi, wherein irregular appointments of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts where ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2022 04:09:29 ::: 18 wp_4546.16.odt employees have worked for 10 years or more without intervention of Court orders have been permitted to be regularized. This Court at its Principal Seat in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Smt. Lalita V. Mertia in Writ Petition No. 1338 of 2015 decided on 08 October 2021 has held that the said exception made in the case of Umadevi is a one time exception and applicable only in respect of employees who have completed ten years as on 10th April 2006. It is held that it was never the intention of the Apex Court to permit regularization of those who had not completed 10 years of service as on the date of rendering of the judgment.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - S V Marne - Full Document

Santosh S/O Datta Khadse And Another vs State Of Maha. Thr. Principal ... on 13 October, 2022

The decision in Union of India and another Vs. Lalita V. Mertia [(2022) 1 CLR 833] was referred where another Division Bench considered the decision in Sachin Ambadas Dawale and others (supra) as clarified in the subsequent decision in Mahesh Madhukar Wagh and others (supra) and it was observed that the decision in Sachin Ambadas Dawale and others (supra) must be held to be a decision which turns on its own facts. The aspect that there could be candidates having equal or better qualifications than those appointed on contractual basis but may not have applied for appointment since such appointment was for a short period would be prejudiced if the relief of regularisation would be granted was highlighted.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - A S Chandurkar - Full Document

M/O Railways And Another vs Dakshin Railway Employees Union And ... on 19 December, 2023

"25. Thus, the settled position of law now is that no person appointed on temporary/casual/adhoc/contractual basis can claim regularization or permanency in service. A one time exception has been carved out by the Apex Court in para No. 53 of the judgment in the case of Umadevi, wherein irregular appointments of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts where employees have worked for 10 years or more without intervention of Court orders have been permitted to be regularized. This Court at its Principal Seat in . the case of Union of India and others Vs. Smt. Lalita V. Mertia in Writ Petition No. 1338 of 2015 decided on 08 October 2021 has held that the said exception made in the case of Umadevi is a one time exception and applicable only in respect of employees who have completed ten years as on 10th April 2006. It is held that it was never the intention of the Apex Court to permit regularization of those who had not completed 10 years of service as on the date of rendering of the judgment.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 87 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dakshin Railway Employees Union And vs M/O Railways on 19 December, 2023

"25. Thus, the settled position of law now is that no person appointed on temporary/casual/adhoc/contractual basis can claim regularization or permanency in service. A one time exception has been carved out by the Apex Court in para No. 53 of the judgment in the case of Umadevi, wherein irregular appointments of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts where employees have worked for 10 years or more without intervention of Court orders have been permitted to be regularized. This Court at its Principal Seat in . the case of Union of India and others Vs. Smt. Lalita V. Mertia in Writ Petition No. 1338 of 2015 decided on 08 October 2021 has held that the said exception made in the case of Umadevi is a one time exception and applicable only in respect of employees who have completed ten years as on 10th April 2006. It is held that it was never the intention of the Apex Court to permit regularization of those who had not completed 10 years of service as on the date of rendering of the judgment.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 87 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Doddigarla Silva Kumari vs South Central Railway on 30 October, 2024

"25. Thus, the settled position of law now is that no person appointed on temporary/casual/contractual basis can claim regularization or permanency in service. A one time exception has been carved out by the Apex Court in para No.53 of the judgment in the case of Umadevi, wherein irregular appointments of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts where employees have worked for 10 years or more without intervention of Court orders have been permitted to be regularized. This Court at its Principal Seat in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Smt. Lalita V. Mertia in Writ Petition No.1338 of 2015 decided on 08 October 2021 has held that the said exception made in the case of Umadevi is a one time exception and applicable only in respect of employees who have completed ten years as on 10th April 2006. It is held that it was never the intention of the Apex Court to permit regularization of those who had not completed 10 years of service as on the date of rendering of the judgment.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next