Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
8. Admittedly, the applicants 1 to 3 are working as Administrative Assistants and
applicant No.5 as Audio Visual Technician as per the contract appointment
and 4th applicant was relieved on 17.4.2018(Annexure-20) on completion of
his contract tenure. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka
vs. Umadevi & Ors. has categorically stated that the contract employee has
no right to continue in the service after expiry of the contractual period and it
is not applicable to the present case as the applicants were appointed to the
contract posts and not on the regularly sanctioned posts. More so, there is no
continuity of service of the applicants and therefore, the applicants are not
entitled to claim for regularisation. The 4th applicant has discharged the duties
up to 23.4.2018 by signing the Attendance Register. It is admitted that
allowing him to sign the attendance after expiry of the contract period is an
error on the part of the Department concerned and this matter is being
investigated departmentally and separate departmental action is initiated.
Unless the contract is extended by an office order, the orders relieving him on
17.04.2018 stands valid and the 4th applicant cannot take shelter by just
signing the Attendance Register claiming that, he was allowed to work beyond
the contract period. The Institute has not allowed any employee to sign in the
register after he/she is relieved unless otherwise indicated by the authority. In
the present case, it is not indicated. The 4th applicant has malafide intention in
taking photocopy of the attendance register and in taking documents in
possession of the HOD. It is pertinent to state that the applicants in order to
9
OA.No.170/00282-00286/2018/CAT/Bangalore Bench
produce the documents before this Court have stolen certain documents from
the office of the 1st respondent and therefore, the 1st respondent Institution
reserve its liberty to take action against the persons who have indulged in
illegal acts including the applicants. The 4th applicant has produced copy of
the Attendance register which was not issued by the 1 st respondent and he
has illegally obtained the same.
Article 34 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Jagjit Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 11 December, 2006
They are entitled the pay scale
attached to the post which they are working and be allowed equal pay for
equal work as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Jagjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Haryana(2017(1) SCC P.148). They are
5
OA.No.170/00282-00286/2018/CAT/Bangalore Bench
also entitled for the arrears of pay and allowances from the date of their initial
appointment till date by computing the minimum pay scale of the post as they
have been exploited by paying a consolidated salary which is gross violation
of Article 14 16(10 & 34(d) of the Constitution of India.
State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Piara Singh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 12 August, 1992
Even on the question of law, the Hon'ble Apex
Court, has time and again, held that the temporary employees cannot be
replaced by another set of temporary employees and they are entitled to be
continued till the regular process of selection is made as per the decisions in
State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh(AIR 1992 SC P.2130) and Ratanlal Vs.
State of Haryana(AIR 1987 SC P.479, 1985 (4) SCC P.43).
J. Goutham Rao And Ors. vs Union Bank Of India And Anr. on 21 November, 1985
In other words, one set of
contract employees cannot be substituted by another set of contract
employees as ordered by the CAT, Principal Bench in the case of Dinesh
Kumar Goutham vs. Union of India dtd.21.11.2011(Annexure-A12). The scope
of work in the tender notification relating to the Office Maintenance does
include data entry, administrative assistance, secretarial assistance etc. The
same can be proceeded with if it is not the same kind of work that is being
performed by the contract employees/administrative assistants namely the
applicants No.1 to 3 in this OA.
State Of Haryana vs Jagjit Singh on 23 February, 2015
OA.No.170/00282-00286/2018/CAT/Bangalore Bench
scale of the post. According to the applicants, the recruitment in AIISH are
made at the institute level, the appointing authority being the Director of the
Institute. The applicants have been appointed after due selection on contract
basis as they have the qualification and they are serving the Institute with
almost satisfactory work and they were assured that in the regular selection,
their cases will be considered by giving weightage and also age relaxation. In
the selection held in October 2016, the applicants were not given weightage
and age relaxation. All the applicants have a specific grievance in relation to
the non-consideration of their selection along with other candidates and non-
giving of weightage to their contract services and the age relaxation. They are
also aggrieved by the denial of equal pay for equal work under Article 14 &
16(1) and Article 39(d) of the Constitution and as per the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Jagjit
Singh(2017(1)SCC).
Sanjeev Kumar Gautam vs Union Of India on 4 May, 2018
4. They further submit that at the time of their initial appointment, they had
qualified for the post and they were selected on the basis of the qualifying
marks, they were not treated as fit along with the new entrants which is totally
discriminatory and uncalled for. The action of the 1st respondent to replace the
services of the applicants by outsourcing is totally illegal. Under similar
circumstances, the Hon'ble Principal Bench, Delhi has allowed the application
of Dinesh Kumar Gautam Vs. UOI in OA.No.1405/2011(Annexure-A12).
Therefore, the entire selection has to be re-done after fixing weightage along
with age relaxation to all the applicants.
1