Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.23 seconds)
Goutam Ram And Anr vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr on 16 May, 2017 cites

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd vs Dan Bahadur Singh & Ors on 27 April, 2007

In support of his contentions, learned Additional Advocate General has relied upon the decisions in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others, 2006 (4) SCC 1, as also in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited v. Dan Bahadur Singh & Others, 2007 (6) SCC 207. Based upon the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid two judgments, learned Additional Advocate General tries to emphasize and bring the case of the respective workmen within the ambit of 'litigious employment' and who, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, would not be entitled for any relief. Banking upon the aforesaid ratio and principles laid down in the aforesaid two judgments, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the period during which the -10- workmen had been out of employment because of retrenchment the said period could not be counted for the purpose of counting the length of service, or for that matter, treating the said period as in continuous employment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 104 - G P Mathur - Full Document

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

"14. The Division Bench of the High Court after referring to the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors., has clearly held that if a person has served for 10 years or more, then it is the duty of the State Government to consider his case for regularization in the post. The said conclusion came to be reached by relying on Articles 309, 14, 16 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 4959 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

State Of Karnataka & Ors vs M.L. Kesari & Ors on 3 August, 2010

Relying upon Umadevi & Ors. (supra), the High Court has further referred to the judgment in the State of Karnataka & Ors. v. M.L. Kesari & Ors. which is considered by this Court and this Court has clearly held that the case of Umadevi & Ors. (supra) cast a duty upon the State Government to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed appointees, who had served for more than 10 years without the benefit or protection of any interim order. Further in the said case, this Court has declared that it has been clearly ordered that one time settlement/measure should be taken within six months i.e. from 10.04.2006. With reference to the aforesaid decision the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-employees placed reliance upon Article 142 of the Constitution in support of the submission that order of the Supreme Court be respected and implemented by its true meaning and spirit. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court accepted the same and came to the conclusion that the claims of the respondent-employees for regularization in their posts are fit cases and they became unfortunate only because of the creation of the State of Jharkhand over which the employees had no control and could not have prevented creation of the State of Jharkhand and because of that reason only, one State cannot take a different stand with -14- respect to the employees appointed by same process. The State Government cannot throw the employees jobless after 30 years of their continuous service in public employment guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution, which would result in great injustice since their source of income will be taken away and thereby the employees and their families will suffer due to the arbitrary action of the State Government of Jharkhand which deprived a person of life and liberty guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1834 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. Etc on 10 July, 1985

In the landmark decision in the case of Olga Tellis & Others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Others, 1985 (3) SCC 545, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in very categorical terms dealing with Article 21 and comparing it with the right to livelihood held that, "The sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far reaching. An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to live, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood. Right to work is the most precious liberty that man possesses. It is most precious liberty because, it sustains and enables a man to live and the right to life thus is a precious freedom. Life means something more than mere animal existence and the inhibition against the deprivation of life extends to all those limits and faculties by which life is enjoyed".
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 1065 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 Next