Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.13 seconds)
Prem Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh Secretary on 2 September, 2019 cites

Jaswant Singh & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc on 29 August, 1979

13. After noticing the earlier judgment in Jaswant Singh case, the Court held: (Kunji Raman case, SCC pp. 521-23, paras 8-10) “8. A work-charged establishment thus differs from a regular establishment which is permanent in nature. Setting up and continuance of a work-charged establishment is de- pendent upon the Government undertaking a project or a scheme or a ‘work’ and availability of funds for executing it. So far as employees engaged in work-charged estab- lishments are concerned, not only their recruitment and service conditions but the nature of work and duties to be performed by them are not the same as those of the em- ployees of the regular establishment. A regular establish- ment and a work-charged establishment are two separate types of establishments and the persons employed in those establishments thus form two separate and distinct classes. For that reason, if a separate set of rules are framed for the persons engaged in the work-charged establishment and the general rules applicable to persons working on the regular establishment are not made applicable to them, it cannot be said that they are treated in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner by the Government. It is well settled that the Gov- ernment has the power to frame different rules for different classes of employees. We, therefore, reject the contention raised on behalf of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 653 of 1993 that clauses (g), (h) and (i) of Rule 2 of the Rajasthan Service Rules are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and uphold the view taken by the High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 111 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 Next