Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.35 seconds)

Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006

36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularised in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularised under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularised of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularised. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularisation as others have been regularised, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension.

Antitrust - Section 26(2) Disclaimer: ... vs M/S Adidas Ag & Ors. 13/05/2014 09/2014 R ... on 13 May, 2014

In Narain Dutt Sharma v. State of U.P. [CA No. ______2019 arising out of SLP (C) No. 5775 of 2018] the appellants were allowed to cross efficiency bar, after ''8' years of continuous service, even during the period of work-charged services. Narain Dutt Sharma, the appellant, was appointed as a work-charged employee as Gej Mapak with effect from 15-9-1978. Payment used to be made monthly but the appointment was made in the pay scale of Rs 200-320. Initially, he was appointed in the year 1978 on a fixed monthly salary of Rs 205 per month. They were allowed to cross efficiency bar also as the benefit of pay scale was granted to them during the period they served as work-charged employees they served for three to four decades and later on services have been regularised time to time by different orders. However, the services of some of the appellants in few petitions/appeals have not been regularised even though they had served for several decades and ultimately reached the age of superannuation.
Competition Commission of India Cites 6 - Cited by 249 - Full Document

Dr. Shyam Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush ... on 17 February, 2023

So far as Act of 2021 is concerned, the same is applicable only upon the employees of State Government. There is no similar Act which is applicable with regard to employees of the Centralized Services of the Development Authority. Even otherwise Act of 2021 is already read down by this Court by judgment dated 17.02.2023 passed in Writ-A No.8968 of 2022 (Dr. Shyam Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others).
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 23 - V Chaudhary - Full Document
1