Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Ashok Kumar Dangi & Ors on 4 July, 2011
9. Accordingly, in light of the above discussion and
in line with the judgments rendered in the cases of
Rajesh Kumar Verma (supra), Yogendra Prasad (supra),
Surendra Choudhary (supra), and Ashok Kumar (supra),
these writ petitions deserve to be allowed.
Dr. Satyendra Kumar Choudhary vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 19 April, 2018
9. Accordingly, in light of the above discussion and
in line with the judgments rendered in the cases of
Rajesh Kumar Verma (supra), Yogendra Prasad (supra),
Surendra Choudhary (supra), and Ashok Kumar (supra),
these writ petitions deserve to be allowed.
Court In The Case Of Secretary, State Of ... vs . Uma on 9 April, 2015
It held that Regularization Rules must be given a
pragmatic interpretation and if the appellants in that
case have completed ten years of service on the date of
promulgation of the Regularization Rules, they ought to
be given the benefit of the service rendered by them,
unless there is some valid objection to their regularization
like misconduct etc.
The Court specifically directed the State of Jharkhand
to henceforth consider making regular appointments only
and dropping the idea of making irregular appointments
so as to short circuit the process of regular appointments.
State Of Jammu & Kashmir vs Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors on 26 September, 1973
11. It is settled position of law that there cannot be any
discrimination amongst similarly situated can be treated
employees, however, the persons differently in a case of
reasonable classification and in that circumstance the
principle of Article 14 will not come into play. But, if the
discrimination is based on unreasonable classification,
Article 14 will come into play as has been held by
Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Jammu & Kashmir vs.
Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors., (1974) 1 SCC 19 ..."
Mahesh Chandra Verma & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 19 September, 2012
8. Recently, the Division Bench of this Court has
again dealt a similar issue in the case of Rajesh Kumar
5
The State of Jharkhand v. Ashok Kumar
6
2025:JHHC:30679
Verma v. State of Jharkhand6; the relevant paragraphs
are quoted herein-below:
Narendra Kumar Tiwari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 August, 2018
In Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of
Jharkhand the Supreme Court considered similar
conduct on the part of the State of Jharkhand of
continuing with a regular appointment for almost a
decade after the decision in Uma Devi (3) (1 supra) and
held that the State believes that it was all right to
continue with the irregular appointments, and whenever
required, terminate the services of the irregularly
appointed employees on the ground that they were
irregularly appointed.
State Of Karnataka & Ors vs M.L. Kesari & Ors on 3 August, 2010
It held that this is nothing but a form of exploitation of
the employees by not giving them the benefits of
regularization and that this is precisely what the
judgment in Uma Devi (3) (supra) and the judgment
in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari sought to avoid.
Nihal Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 7 August, 2013
In Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab, a similar plea
was rejected. The Court held:
Yogendra Mahto @ Yogendra Prasad vs Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha Through The ... on 30 April, 2018
9. Accordingly, in light of the above discussion and
in line with the judgments rendered in the cases of
Rajesh Kumar Verma (supra), Yogendra Prasad (supra),
Surendra Choudhary (supra), and Ashok Kumar (supra),
these writ petitions deserve to be allowed.
1