Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.31 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 307 in Jammu and Kashmir Municipal Corporation Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
Article 23 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
In State of Kernataka Vs. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1
(SCC p. 18 para 6) the Constitution Bench, while discussing the
role of State in a recruitment procedure, stated that if rules
have been made under Article 309 of the Constitution, then the
Government can make appointments only in accordance with
the rules, for the State is meant to be a model employer.
Swapan Kumar Pal & Ors vs Samitabhar Chakraborty & Ors on 9 May, 2001
Similar
view was also expressed in Swapan Kumar Pal vs. Samitabhar
Chakraborety (2001) 5 SCC 581.
State Of Haryana vs Haryana Veterinary & A.H.T.S. ... on 19 September, 2000
In State of Haryana vs. Haryana Veterinary and AHTS
Assn, (2000) 8 SCC 4, a three Judge Bench, after x-ray of the
relevant rules, came to hold that when appoints are made in
violation of the recruitment rules, the said appointments
cannot be treated to be regular.
Principal, Mehar Chand Polytechnic & ... vs Anu Lumba & Ors on 8 August, 2006
In Mehar Chand Polytechnic vs. Anu Lamba (2006) 7
SCC 161 (SCC p. 166, para 16) the Court observed that public
employment is a facet of right to equality envisages under
Article 16 of the Constitution of India and that the recruitment
rules are framed with a view to give equal opportunity to all the
citizens of India entitled for being considered for recruitment in
the vacant posts."
S. Vasudevan And Ors. vs S.D. Mital And Ors. on 18 January, 1961
'Begar'
may, therefore, be loosely described as labour or service which a person is
forced to give without receiving any remuneration for it. This definition was
accepted by a Divisional Bench of the Bombay High Court, in case titled 'S
Vasudevan v. S.D Mital',AIR 1962 Bom 53' 'Begar' thus, clearly is a form of
forced labour and all forms of forced labour are unconstitutionally prohibited
by Article 23 of Constitution of India. This Article strikes at forced labour in
whatever form it may manifest itself, because it is violative of human dignity
and is contrary to basic human values. In the case on hand, the respondents are
extracted services from the petitioners but are not paying them any
salary/wages/remuneration for the same solely on the ground that their
appointment is not genuine, thereby subjecting the petitioner to 'Begar',
moreso, when there is no formal order declaring the petitioners as having been
fraudulently appointed. In absence of a final decision with reference to the case
of petitioners' fraud appointment, coupled with the factum of the petitioners
discharging their duties in the respondent department, the respondents cannot
retain the salary of the petitioners for inordinate time. The respondents, in law,
were/are obliged to take all possible steps so as to ensure that the decision in
the matter is taken regarding their fraudulent appointment of the petitioners.
The petitioners have been discharging their duties ever since their joining the
Page 10 of 10 SWP No. 840/2019
[ WP(C) No. 1338/2019]
CM No. 6150/2020 C/w
CCP(S) No. 280/220
respondent department. It is also well settled that salary is the property of an
employee and that the right to receive the salary is a fundamental right of an
employee as enshrined under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. In the case
on hand, the only reason for non-payment of the salary in favour of the
petitioners is genuineness or otherwise of the appointment of the petitioners. As
already stated, the petitioners are discharging their duties in the respondent
department and not paying them salary would tantamount to taking 'Begar'
form the petitioners which, as observed hereinabove, in forbidden under Article
23 of the Constitution of India.