Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.48 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Hukam Chand Shyam Lal vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 December, 1975
rt
In our view the said Rule clearly spells
out its essential purpose, to give pensionary
benefit to certain class of employees as
'regular employee', notwithstanding the
fact that no formal order of regularization
was passed. Sri Singhal has relied on the
judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal,
Lucknow Bench, Lucknow passed in Original
Application No. 509 of 2004. We have perused
the said judgment. In the said case, the
learned Tribunal has not taken note of the
Scheme framed by the Department dated
12.4.2001 and paragraph 17 of the Scheme
where it is clearly provided that no recruitment
will made from open market for Group D
posts (except on compassionate appointment)
till casual labours with requisite qualifications
are available to fill up the posts in question.
Moreover, the Tribunal has also mis-construed
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Union Of India & Others vs Shyam Lal Shukla & Another on 23 December, 2011
It is in response to this order that the
impugned order dated 21 10 2014 has been
passed The respondents have categorically
stated that Moti Ram whose case has
been referred to by the applicant was
appointed as regular MTS Grove in
of
November, 2012. Perusal of the memo
no. B-2/Moti Ram/2010, dated 10.11.2010
(Annexure A-8) shows that this was an
rt
order regarding posting of Sh Moti Ram
Temporary status Casual Labourer treated
at par with Temporary Group 'D' employees,
as Group 'D' against vacant post at Sub
Post Office, Manali. In the endorsement
it is seen that copy no.1 is endorsed to
Moti Ram Temporary Group 'D'. Mandi
HO. This order dated 10.11.2010 cannot
be treated as an order regularizing the
services of Sh. Moti Ram. It is merely
a posting/deployment order. Hence, since
the applicant has not been able to
establish that any person junior to him
was regularized prior to the date when
he superannuated on 08.06.2012, his
claim for regularization prior to his
date of superannuation cannot succeed.
The judgments regarding Shyam Lal
Shukla (supra), UOI & Ors. Vs. Shyam Lal
Shukla (supra) etc. are distinguishable on
Yashwant Hari Katakkar vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 September, 1994
17. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Yashwant Hari Katakkar versus Union of
India and others, (1996) 7 SCC 113, has mandated
that it would be travesty of justice if an employee
is denied pensionary benefits simply on the ground
that he was not a permanent employee, in following
terms:-
Dharam Singh And Others vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 9 March, 1962
in Re; Dharam Singh & Ors versus State of
U.P. & Anr., decided on 19.08.2025 has outlined
that long-term extraction of work under temporary
labels corrodes confidence in public administration
of
and offends the promise of equal protection and
such adhocism erodes not only the dignity of
rt
workers and their livelihood but such exploitation
practice offend Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India. After deprecating such practice,
directions were issued to accord the benefit of
regularization to Casual Incumbents, in the following
terms:-
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of U.P.& Ors vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 17 October, 2014
service (ranging between more than 17 years in
case of Shyam Lal Shukla and more than 20
years in case of Mehar Chand) and both stood
retired from service without being regularized and
of
by virtue of judicial intervention, Shyam Lal Shukla
was granted pensionary benefits by treating and
rt
conferring benefit of "deemed regularization" then,
the petitioner deserves similar treatment so as to
ensure similar treatment in terms of the mandate
of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Uttar Pradesh versus Arvind Kumar &
Ors (2015) 1 SCC 347 and Siraj Ahmad versus
State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) 17 SCC 626 and
in Lt Col.