Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.28 seconds)Article 23 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shripal vs Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad on 12 September, 2023
The
Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the issue of workmen in
case of Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad decided
on 31.01.2025 has acknowledged need for initiating a fair and
transparent process for regularising workmen considering the
fact they performed perennial municipal duties integral to the
B SHRI B2025.10.16
SHRI AKSHAYA
AKSHAYA15:58:37+05'30'
9 OA No. 1411/2018
functioning of the institution.
State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Kamal Prasad & Ors on 23 April, 2014
(ii) State of Jharkhand vs. Kamal Prasad & Ors. (2023) SCC
online SC 45, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that the
employees with long, continuous service, who have been treated
as permanent for all practical purposes, cannot be left in limbo
indefinitely.
Union Of India And Ors vs Hindustan Development Corpn. And Ors on 15 April, 1993
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the name of
the applicant was officially recommended for full-time
B SHRI B2025.10.16
SHRI AKSHAYA
AKSHAYA15:58:37+05'30'
5 OA No. 1411/2018
appointment in 2006, his service record is unblemished and has
served department for nearly three decades. The denial of
regularisation despite repeated assurances defeats the principle
of legitimate expectation. He submits that in Union of India vs.
Hindustan Development Corporation (1993) 3 SCC 499, the
doctrine of legitimate expectation was recognised as a facet of
Article 14 and in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC
148, the Court held that equal pay for equal work must apply to
contractual/daily wage employees discharging same duties as
permanent employees.
State Of Punjab And Ors vs Jagjit Singh And Ors on 26 October, 2016
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the name of
the applicant was officially recommended for full-time
B SHRI B2025.10.16
SHRI AKSHAYA
AKSHAYA15:58:37+05'30'
5 OA No. 1411/2018
appointment in 2006, his service record is unblemished and has
served department for nearly three decades. The denial of
regularisation despite repeated assurances defeats the principle
of legitimate expectation. He submits that in Union of India vs.
Hindustan Development Corporation (1993) 3 SCC 499, the
doctrine of legitimate expectation was recognised as a facet of
Article 14 and in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC
148, the Court held that equal pay for equal work must apply to
contractual/daily wage employees discharging same duties as
permanent employees.
Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. Etc on 10 July, 1985
In Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal
Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that "right to livelihood" is an integral part of the right to life.
State Of M.P. & Ors vs Lalit Kumar Verma on 24 November, 2006
6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the claim of
the applicant and submits that the applicant has been working
only on hourly basis as a part-time sweeper and was paid from
contingency funds of the Government. There exists no sanctioned
post of Sweeper in the regular cadre, therefore, the claim for
regularisation is not maintainable. Respondents have relied upon
two judgments, i.e., Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma
Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of M.P. & Ors. vs. Lalit Kumar
Verma (AIR 2007 SC 528), it has been held that no
regularisation shall be made without sanctioned post.