Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.27 seconds)Nihal Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 7 August, 2013
8. The applicants have relied upon the case of Nihal Singh
(supra) and also Bhupinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of
Punjab and others (CWP No.6135 of 2013) but we find
the decision is distinguishable. In this case relating to
regularization of Special Police Officers selection itself was
based on exercise of the statutory power under Section 17
of the Police Act 1861. However, in the case of the
12
applicants, we find that the employment is contractual
w.e.f. 14.03.2007 and 16.03.2004 respectively i.e. right
from beginning and not under any statute. The fact is that
the post was sought to be sanctioned on regular basis
along with other posts, but it cannot be said that such
posts are governed by statutory rules. Mere request for
sanctioning of post cannot be equated to actual sanction of
the posts. Even though request for sanction of post was
made to respondent No.1 that was not accepted as early as
16.02.2004 itself. We have also perused Annexure A-5
being Rules dated 06.08.1993 regulating appointment of
Group D which prescribes mode of appointment for persons
appointed to Chandigarh Administration Grade D services.
Being a contractual worker as seen from Annexure A-2 and
A-3 being the appointment orders of applicants, they were
not appointed under the Rules dated 06.08.1993.
Bhupinder Singh Saini And Ors. vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 20 February, 2001
8. The applicants have relied upon the case of Nihal Singh
(supra) and also Bhupinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of
Punjab and others (CWP No.6135 of 2013) but we find
the decision is distinguishable. In this case relating to
regularization of Special Police Officers selection itself was
based on exercise of the statutory power under Section 17
of the Police Act 1861. However, in the case of the
12
applicants, we find that the employment is contractual
w.e.f. 14.03.2007 and 16.03.2004 respectively i.e. right
from beginning and not under any statute. The fact is that
the post was sought to be sanctioned on regular basis
along with other posts, but it cannot be said that such
posts are governed by statutory rules. Mere request for
sanctioning of post cannot be equated to actual sanction of
the posts. Even though request for sanction of post was
made to respondent No.1 that was not accepted as early as
16.02.2004 itself. We have also perused Annexure A-5
being Rules dated 06.08.1993 regulating appointment of
Group D which prescribes mode of appointment for persons
appointed to Chandigarh Administration Grade D services.
Being a contractual worker as seen from Annexure A-2 and
A-3 being the appointment orders of applicants, they were
not appointed under the Rules dated 06.08.1993.
The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
The Police Act, 1949
Section 19 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Rajinder Kumar @ Banti vs State Of U.T. Chandigarh And Others on 11 February, 2011
1. With the consent of parties, both the Original Applications
No.60/541/2022 and 60/ 513/2022 are taken up together for
disposal as common arguments were advanced in both the
original applications. They involve same question of law and
facts i.e. whether respondent No.3 is competent to change the
terms and conditions of appointment after a period of more
than 15 years (applicant Rajinder Kumar) and 18 years
(applicant Naresh Chand Mishra). However, for convenience,
facts are being taken from O.A. No.541/2022 Rajinder Kumar
vs. U.T. Chandigarh & Ors.
1