Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.71 seconds)
Ayub N. Badi vs Guj State Land Development Corporation ... on 27 March, 2002 cites

State Of Punjab & Ors vs M/S. Surinder Kumar & Co. & Ors on 11 December, 1996

In case of State of Punjab and others versus Surinder Kumar and others reported in (1992) 1 SCC 489, relied upon by Mr. Vaishnav, the question of regularization of part timer was under consideration before the apex court. In the case before the apex court, the respondents offered posts of part time lecturers with specific condition that they could be relieved at any time without notice and that payment would be made on hourly basis. The offer was accepted by the respondents not under any mistake and appointments were made accordingly and, therefore, it was held that the respondents were not entitled to be regularized in their posts as lecturers with salary on regular pay scale. In the instant case, the facts are not similar. In the instant case, there is no order of appointment given by the respondents, no condition has been prescribed or incorporated in any circular or order. IN this case, the petitioners were appointed on the basis of their application after verification of the application as regards their names, address, age, qualification etc. and the respondent corporation has continued the petitioners for years together in the same position. Some of the petitioners herein were appointed in 1980 and some were appointed in or around 1982-83 and lastly in November, 1990, the respondent corporation had followed procedure for regularization of such contingent paid employees on regular post and on regular establishment wherein about 36 of such employees were regularized on regular post but thereafter, have not undertaken any such process for regularization of such contingency paid employees.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 277 - Full Document

Arundhat1 Ajit Pargaonkar vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 31 August, 1994

In case of Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar versus State of Maharashtra and Another reported in JT 1994 (5) SC 378 relied upon by Mr. Vaishnav, the question for consideration of the apex court was whether the appellant appointed temporarily against a permanent post was entitled to be regularized under temporary Govt. Servants Extension of Permanency Resolution of 1975 or not and when she has worked for nine years without break on the date of advertisement. The answer given by the apex court was in the negative. It was held that the claim of the appellant that she stood regularized under 1975 Resolution cannot be accepted. It was further held that the eligibility and continuous working for howsoever long periods should not be permitted to over reach the law. I have considered this judgment cited by Mr. Vaishnav. The facts and circumstances of the said case are not identical to this case and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, principles laid down in the said decision are not applicable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 131 - R M Sahai - Full Document

D.D. Upadhyaya And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 27 July, 1998

27. The third decision relied upon by Mr. Vaishnav is 1998 (3) GLR 2264 in case of DD Upadhyaya versus State of Gujarat and Others. This Court was considering the question of regularization in light of the Gujarat Civil Services (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1967, Rule 16(ii) (iii) in particulars. Appointments to the posts of Assistant in Legal Department were made by calling names from the employment exchange and such appointments were made on ad.hoc basis. Though the appointments were required to be made through GPSC. Thereafter, appointments were regularized under Rule 16 by relaxation of Rules under the guise of interest of public service. On facts, it was found that at the relevant time, GPSC had recommended names for posts of Assistants which included Law Graduates. Out of six persons appointed four had failed in GPSC Examination and two chose not to appear. Father of one of these persons working as Deputy Secretary in the Legal Department at the relevant time and favouritism not rules out. It was held that the appointments were void ab initio. These are not the facts in the case before hand. In the instant case, specific question was asked to the learned advocate Mr. Vaishnav as to what was the procedure for recruitment of part time contingent employees. He has not been able to answer that particular question whether any procedure has been prescribed by the corporation or not for appointment of part time contingency paid employees. When there is no procedure prescribed by the Corporation, such appointments cannot be termed as back door entries.
Gujarat High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 8 - S K Keshote - Full Document

Amarsinh Madhavji Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat on 5 December, 2001

20. Recently, in case of Amarsinh Madhavji Chauhan versus State of Gujarat reported in [2002(92) FLR 919], this Court has considered the question of regularization of the petitioner appointed on daily wages as watchman from July, 1974, continued in service upto 2001 and has held that the petitioner is entitled to be regularized and to get regular pay scale. In para 4, 5 and 6 of the report, this Court has observed as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Dinesh Shivubha Parmar vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 12 March, 1992

Here, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, according to my opinion, for recruitment of part time contingency paid employees, there is no procedure prescribed to call the names from the Employment Exchange Officer or from the Social Welfare Office and, therefore, appointments of the petitioners in the present case cannot be considered as irregular appointments because there was no rule prescribed for such appointment and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, decision in case of Dinesh Shivubha Parmar (supra) is not applicable. In the instant case, some of such part timers were regularized in November, 1990 wherein as admitted by Mr. Vaishnav, persons junior to the petitioners herein were considered for regularization and their services were regularized but after November, 1990, no such task has been undertaken by the respondent corporation. Therefore, in view of these peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, aforesaid decision shall not apply.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - C K Thakker - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next