Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 36 (0.34 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Triveni Shankar Saxena vs State Of U.P. And Others on 20 December, 1991
8. A temporary employees has no right to hold the post and his services are liable to be terminated without assigning any reason either under the terms of the contract providing for such terminating or under the relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of temporary servants. Similarly, in Triveni Shanker Saxena v. State of U.P. and Ors. ; Commissioner of Food and Supply v. Prakash Chandra Saxena, ; Ram Chandra Tripathi v. U.P. Public Service Tribunal and Ors. ; Madhya Pradesh Hasth Shilp Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Devendra Kumar Jain and Anr. ; and Kaushal Kishore Shukla (supra), the Apex Court has categorically held that incumbent to a post who has been given appointment on temporary basis, terminable without notice, has no right to hold the post and he is not entitled for any opportunity of hearing before his services are dispensed with as his termination does not amount to forfeiture of any legal right.
Commissioner, Food And Civil Supplies vs Prakash C. Saxena on 5 May, 1994
8. A temporary employees has no right to hold the post and his services are liable to be terminated without assigning any reason either under the terms of the contract providing for such terminating or under the relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of temporary servants. Similarly, in Triveni Shanker Saxena v. State of U.P. and Ors. ; Commissioner of Food and Supply v. Prakash Chandra Saxena, ; Ram Chandra Tripathi v. U.P. Public Service Tribunal and Ors. ; Madhya Pradesh Hasth Shilp Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Devendra Kumar Jain and Anr. ; and Kaushal Kishore Shukla (supra), the Apex Court has categorically held that incumbent to a post who has been given appointment on temporary basis, terminable without notice, has no right to hold the post and he is not entitled for any opportunity of hearing before his services are dispensed with as his termination does not amount to forfeiture of any legal right.
Ram Chandra Tripathi vs U.P. Public Services Tribunal Iv And ... on 25 February, 1994
8. A temporary employees has no right to hold the post and his services are liable to be terminated without assigning any reason either under the terms of the contract providing for such terminating or under the relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of temporary servants. Similarly, in Triveni Shanker Saxena v. State of U.P. and Ors. ; Commissioner of Food and Supply v. Prakash Chandra Saxena, ; Ram Chandra Tripathi v. U.P. Public Service Tribunal and Ors. ; Madhya Pradesh Hasth Shilp Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Devendra Kumar Jain and Anr. ; and Kaushal Kishore Shukla (supra), the Apex Court has categorically held that incumbent to a post who has been given appointment on temporary basis, terminable without notice, has no right to hold the post and he is not entitled for any opportunity of hearing before his services are dispensed with as his termination does not amount to forfeiture of any legal right.
Madhya Pradesh Hasta Shilpa Vikas Nigam ... vs Devendra Kumar Jain & Ors on 7 December, 1994
8. A temporary employees has no right to hold the post and his services are liable to be terminated without assigning any reason either under the terms of the contract providing for such terminating or under the relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of temporary servants. Similarly, in Triveni Shanker Saxena v. State of U.P. and Ors. ; Commissioner of Food and Supply v. Prakash Chandra Saxena, ; Ram Chandra Tripathi v. U.P. Public Service Tribunal and Ors. ; Madhya Pradesh Hasth Shilp Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Devendra Kumar Jain and Anr. ; and Kaushal Kishore Shukla (supra), the Apex Court has categorically held that incumbent to a post who has been given appointment on temporary basis, terminable without notice, has no right to hold the post and he is not entitled for any opportunity of hearing before his services are dispensed with as his termination does not amount to forfeiture of any legal right.
Ravi S. Naik vs Union Of India on 9 February, 1994
In Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India , the Hon'ble Apex Court has placed reliance on the observations made in Malloch v. Aberdden Corporation, 1971 (2) All E.R. 1278 wherein it has been observed as under:
Life Insurance Corporation Of India & ... vs Shri Raghavendra Seshagiri Rao ... on 14 October, 1997
In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Raghuvendra Sheshgiri Rao Kulkarni 1998 (1) SCC 460, the Apex Court explained the differences of a permanent employee and an employee holding the post on probation and held that the services of a probationer cannot be equated with that of a permanent employee who, on account of his status, is entitled to be retained in service and his services cannot be terminated abruptly without any notice or plausible cause. "This is based on the principle that a substantive appointment to a permanent post in a public service confers substantive right to the post and the person appointed on that post becomes entitled to hold a lien on that post." However, interpreting/enforcing the terms of appointment, which provided from discharge of the said probationer from service at any time during the period of probation or extended period of probation, without any notice or without assigning any cause, the Court held that as his termination was in consonance with the terms and conditions of his appointment letter, he cannot be heard raising grievance.
Hindustan Education Society & Anr vs Sk. Kaleem Sk. Gulam Nabi & Ors on 10 March, 1997
In Hindustan Education Society and Anr. v. K.P. Kalim S.K. Gulam Nabi, , the Apex Court has held that where the rules specifically provide for permanent appointment on probation for specific period and an employee is appointed without stipulating any condition regarding probation, the inference is to be drawn that he was not appointed in substantive capacity.
Avinash Nagra vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Etc on 30 September, 1996
In Avinash Nagra v. Sarvodaya Vidhyalaya Samiti and Ors. , the Apex Court has held that a society can terminate the services not only of a temporary employee but also of a permanent employee by giving him one month's notice or three months' pay and allowances in lieu thereof if the terms of appointment and rules so permit and such termination may be valid in a given cases even if the principles of natural justice have not been complied with.