Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.24 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Court In The Case Of Secretary, State Of ... vs . Uma on 9 April, 2015
27. However, a perusal of the said judgment makes it abundantly clear
that certain guidelines were issued to regularize the services of those employees,
13 of 33
::: Downloaded on - 01-01-2026 06:04:24 :::
CWP-31401-2025 & other connected cases 14
who were taken into job on daily wage/adhoc/contractual basis, but at the same
time proceeded on to observe that only in a contingency, an adhoc appointment
can be made in a permanent vacancy, but the same should soon be followed by a
regular recruitment and that appointments to none available posts should not be
taken not for regularization. It has also further says that the cases directing
regularization, wherein the employees have been permitted to work for some
period should be absorb without really laying down any law to that effect, after
discussing the constitutional scheme for public employment.
Deepali Gundu Surwase vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak & Ors on 12 August, 2013
20. Continuity is not a symbolic relief it is a legal restoration of service
status. The Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior
Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324, held that once reinstatement with
continuity is granted, the employee is deemed to have remained in uninterrupted
service for all service-related benefits while holding that,
"33. The propositions which can be culled out from the
aforementioned judgments are:
Union Of India & Ors vs Vartak Labour Union on 4 March, 2011
29. After the judgment of Uma Devi (supra), the Supreme Court in
'Union of India and others vs. Vartak Labour Union, 2011(2) SLR 414, quashed
the judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court wherein a
direction was issued to regularize employees of Union who had put in about 30
years of service with the BRO. However, the Supreme Court gave a directions to
the Union of India to consider enacting an appropriate regulation/scheme for
absorption and regularization of the services of the casual workers engaged by
BRO for execution of its on-going project.
State Of U.P. And Ors. vs Putti Lal on 21 February, 2002
In 'State of U.P. and others Vs. Putti Lal (2006) 9 SCC 337, the
employees claimed regular wages keeping in view the fact that they have been
working on daily wage basis for number of years. The High Court allowed the writ
petition holding that all daily wage workers, who have rendered 10 years of
service should be regularized by making appropriate scheme. In terms of proviso
to Article 309 of the Constitution, rules were framed for regularization of daily
wage employees. In the aforesaid case, a three Judges' Bench of Supreme Court
upheld the order that daily wagers discharging the similar duties as those in the
regular appointment would be entitle to draw at the minimum of pay scale being
received by their counter parts and would not be entitled to any other allowances
or increment so long as they continue as daily wager. After returning such finding,
the Court observed as under:
Union Of India And Ors vs Hindustan Development Corpn. And Ors on 15 April, 1993
In "Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation,
(1993) 3 SCC 499", the Supreme Court recognized legitimate expectation as part
of constitutional fairness wherein it was held,
"29. This is a three-fold present : the present as we experience it, the
past as a present memory and future as a present expectation. For
legal purposes, the expectation cannot be the same as anticipation. It
is different from a wish, a desire or a hope nor can it amount to a
claim or demand on the ground of a right. However earnest and
sincere a wish, a desire or a hope may be and however confidently
one may look to them to be fulfilled, they by themselves cannot
amount to an assertable expectation and a mere disappointment does
not attract legal consequences. A pious hope even leading to a moral
obligation cannot amount to a legitimate expectation. The legitimacy
of an expectation can be inferred only if it is founded on the sanction
of law or custom or an established procedure followed in regular and
natural sequence. Again it is distiguishable from a genuine
expectation. Such expectation should be justifiably legitimate and
protectable. Every such legitimate expectation does not by itself
fructify into a right and therefore it does not amount to a right in the
conventional sense.