Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.25 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Badri And Ors. vs Union Territory And Ors. on 28 July, 2003
5. At the hearing, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents vide their own communication dated 30.11.1992 addressed to the Heads of Postal Circles advising to treat the casual labourers after rendering three years of continuous service with temporary status would be at par with temporary Group D employees and as such would be entitled to such benefits as are admissible to Group D employees on regular basis. The applicant herein rendered more than 3 years service with temporary status. Furthermore, all the officials were advised even to process regularization of all eligible employees with three years continuous service with temporary status. Much emphasis was led by the applicants counsel on the case of Badri and others vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and ors., 2004(1) AISLJ (CAT) 204, wherein it has been inter alia held that plea of no vacancies hence no regularization is only a camouflage to deny regularization. Persons are working for years so work exists and they are getting the pay and allowances as regular staff, as such creation of posts will entail no extra financial burden. The directions were issued in that case to regularise such employees. The important points involved in that case are as follows. Merely because Scheme envisages existence of vacancies for regularization, one cannot be denied regularization. The Government must create posts to regularise eligible persons. Existence of long continuous service leads to presumption of existence of vacancies. Financial Constraints of Government is no ground to refuse regularization. State should take up only that much work as is within its financial capacity. Non-existence of vacancies is no ground to deny regularization. Denying retiral benefits to casual labour is anti socialistic and also an unfair labour practice. The learned counsel for the applicant has taken us through the order in details contending that the deceased employee having served for 28 years ought to have been regularised even without there being any vacancy for it was incumbent upon the respondents to create vacancy for such purpose.
Paradise Printers And Ors. A vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh And Ors on 4 December, 1987
The claim of the applicants therein were opposed by the respondents by relying upon the decision of earlier case of Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Kelongi and others vs. Union Territory and others in OA-1296-CH, wherein it was observed that those applicants would be regularised as and when vacancies arise. The said case was distinguished in the Badris case as various decision of the Apex Court were not brought to the notice of the Bench and, therefore, escaped consideration.
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
11. The legal position on the issue involved in the case has finally been settled by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, 2006(4) SCALE 197. The question in this case where merely because the temporary employee or casual wage worker is continuing for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made a permanent merely on the strength of that continued in service if recruitment was no made by following the due process of selection. The question was answered in negative. It has further been held in that case that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked in such cases. It has further been held that the rights of the employees thus appointed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would not be violated. It cannot be said that such action in not regularizing the employee is not appeared to be within the framework of the rule of law. Even the employment on daily wages was held to be not forced labour. No mandamus can be issued in favour of such persons. While holding as aforesaid, the Honble Supreme Court clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held in this judgment, would stand denuded of their status as precedents.
1