Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.83 seconds)
Ram Kishan & Anr vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 16 February, 2016 cites

Raghunath, Ram Kishan & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 November, 2002

After reinstatement, the petitioners made their claim for regularization as per the policies dated 7.3.1996, 18.3.1996 and 1.10.2003. When the case of the petitioners was not considered by respondent no.2, they filed CWP No.2784 of 2013 titled,`Ram Kishan and others vs. State of Haryana and others', which was disposed of with a direction to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Forest Department, Haryana to consider and decide the legal notice of the petitioners dated 5.7.2012 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four months. Vide impugned order dated 07.05.2013 (Annexures P-7 to P-8), their case for regularization has been declined.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 154 - H K Sema - Full Document

Court In The Case Of Secretary, State Of ... vs . Uma on 9 April, 2015

The case of the petitioners was considered as per regularization policy 29.7.2011 and in view of the ratio laid down in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi and others 2006(4) SCC (1). Their representation was rejected while holding that the petitioners did not fulfill the conditions of the regularization policy 29.7.2011 as they had neither been employed through employment Exchange nor they had been appointed on the basis of recommendations made by the Department Selection Commission. Moreover, they had not RITU 2016.03.03 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 22793 of 2013 :3: worked for ten years as on 10.4.2006.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 1 - Cited by 2142 - Full Document

The State Of Haryana And Others vs Mohammad Farookh And Another on 30 April, 2013

An LPA Bench of this Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Mohammad Farookh and another (Annexure P-11) was considering a case of regularization where reinstatement had been ordered by way of labour Court Award. The termination of the workmen was held to be violative of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as they were held to have worked for more than 240 days in the 12 preceding months prior to their wrongful retrenchment. The case for regularization was denied as they were not covered under the policy circular dated 1.10.2003 issued by the State Government for regularization of services of daily wages/contractual employees as the policy stipulated certain conditions including that the eligible employees should be in service as on 30.9.2003.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 17 - S Kant - Full Document
1