Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.28 seconds)
Bhaskar Ramrao Londhe And Another vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 23 January, 2026 cites

Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006

17. On merits, he submits that in the advertisements itself, it is clearly stated that the appointments are under the PMGSY scheme on contractual basis. The petitioners having accepted the contractual appointments, cannot now turn around and seek permanency. No writ is prayed against the Zilla Parishad. The advertisement is only for one year. The work is now done under the different schemes. There is no challenge to such policy in the petitions. There is no work now available of permanent nature. He relied upon the judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umadevi and Ors. 6, where it is 6 2006 AIR (SC) 1806 ( 82 ) WP-527-2025 + held that no right can be created of regularization. He relies on the reply filed in WP/4130/2015, common in all the writ petitions. He submits that the establishment of MRRDA, which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The said society though is established by the Government cannot be said to be an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. For the present, the posts are with the societies and not with the Zilla Parishad or the Government and no substantive posts are created. The scheme is only as per direction of Union of India. He thus submits that the petitions deserve to be dismissed as there is no vested right in any of the petitioners.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 4959 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

Vinod Kumar Ias vs Union Of India And Ors. on 20 November, 2017

In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umaevi an Ors. (supra). In the said case, the appointments were made as backdoor entries. The appointments were on daily wages basis or temporary/contract basis. The appointments were also in violation of ( 96 ) WP-527-2025 + constitutional scheme. In the said case, direction was given to regularize the employment by treating them as permanent.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Sheo Narain Nagar vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 13 November, 2017

In the case of Sheo Narain Nagar and Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with a case where the appellants were initially engaged on daily wages basis in 1993. Later on in 1996, they were appointed on contractual basis. In the year 2000, the appointment orders were issued appointing the appellants as regular employees on ( 92 ) WP-527-2025 + the minimum pay scale. In the year 2006, they were confirmed with the status of temporary employees with retrospective effect from 2002. When the employees approached the High Court, the High Court only directed that their cases be considered for regularization and dismissed the writ petition. The order passed by the learned Single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench. The employees thus were before the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the appellants had rendered the services for three years, when they were offered the service on contract basis. The case could not be said to be back door entry. There was no rule in place for offering such appointment and thus the appointment could not be said to be illegal or in contravention of Rules. In that view, the appeals were allowed directing that the services of the appellant therein be regularized from 02/10/2002 with consequential benefits and arrears of pay. The payment was directed to be paid within three months from the date of order.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 9 - Cited by 159 - Full Document

Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak vs Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation on 18 May, 2022

In support of the submissions of learned AGP, she relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4134 of ( 83 ) WP-527-2025 + 2022 in the case of Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation dated 18.05.2022. The Hon'ble Apex Court in various other cases have held that the petitioners shall be entitled to get the arrears of salary only for three years prior to the date of filing of writ petition. This Court finds that the petitioner also entitled to get the benefits of arrears with bank interest.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 67 - A Rastogi - Full Document
1   2 Next