Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.43 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ashok Kumar Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh 11 Wps/449/2019 ... on 23 January, 2019
2. Arising out of the same common
order, some of the applicants have
approached this Court by M.P No.
1626/2024 (Ashok Kumar Verma Vs.
Union of India), M.P No. 1627/2024
(Krishna Swamy Vs. Union of India),
M.P No. 1660/2024 (Shatrughan
Mahanand & others Vs. Union of India)
and M.P No. 1541/2015 (Sanjay Kumar
Tiwari Vs. Union of India & others).
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ravi Verma And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 March, 2018
In view of the above, present petition is
allowed and impugned order dated
11.10.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed in
O.A No. 713/2011 is set aside. The
order passed in Civil Appeal No. 2795-
2796 of 2018 (Ravi Verma & others Vs.
Union of India) shall also apply mutatis
mutandis in the present petition."
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Court In The Case Of Secretary, State Of ... vs . Uma on 9 April, 2015
9. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General, opposing the
submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, would submit
that the present writ petitions are wholly misconceived, devoid of
merit, and deserves to be dismissed at the very threshold. It is
contended that the petitioners are seeking regularization of their
services in complete disregard of the settled constitutional and
legal principles governing public employment, as authoritatively
laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, which continues to
hold the field as binding precedent under Article 141 of the
Constitution of India.
State Of U.P.& Ors vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 17 October, 2014
38. Further, in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava,
(2015) 1 SCC 347, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the
57
doctrine of parity and non-discrimination, holding that once relief
is granted to one set of employees, the same cannot be denied to
others identically situated. The relevant principle are extracted as
under :
V. Venugopala Ravi Varma Rajah vs Union Of India & Anr on 26 February, 1969
The petitioners, having accepted engagement through
outsourcing agencies and continued to work under such
arrangements for several years, cannot now turn around and
challenge the same. The plea that they were working "under
protest" is vague, unsubstantiated, and devoid of any legal
consequence. Responding to the reliance placed by the
petitioners on subsequent judgments such as Pawan Kumar
(Supra), Ravi Verma (Supra), Jaggo (Supra), and others, the
learned counsel submits that none of these judgments dilute or
override the binding ratio of the Constitution Bench in Uma Devi
(Supra). It is a settled principle of judicial discipline that a
judgment rendered by a larger bench prevails over decisions of
smaller benches.
State Of Karnataka & Ors vs M.L. Kesari & Ors on 3 August, 2010
The
subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.L.
Kesari (Supra), has authoritatively clarified that the one-time
50
exercise contemplated in Uma Devi is to be applied in a pragmatic
and purposive manner. The Court emphasized that the benefit of
regularization cannot be denied on hyper-technical grounds,
particularly where employees have been continued for long years
and the State has taken work from them without interruption. The
underlying principle is one of fairness and non-arbitrariness in
State action.