Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (0.48 seconds)
A.Sivakumar vs The Secretary To Government on 25 May, 2015 cites

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

10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , cases of several daily- wage/ad hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularisation process. On the other hand, some government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 4959 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

B.N. Nagarajan And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 3 May, 1979

(1972)2 S.C.R.799, and B.N.Nagarajan and others v. State of Karnataka and others B.N.Nagarajan and others v. State of Karnataka and others B.N.Nagarajan and others v. State of Karnataka and others (1979)4 S.C.C. 507: 1980 S.C.C.(L. & S.) 4: (1979)3 S.C.R.937, and referred to in para.15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of Courts or of Tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one 22/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 23 time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of Courts or of Tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub-judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. [Italics for emphasis]”
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 218 - Full Document

B. N. Nagarajan And Ors vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. Etc on 3 May, 1959

(1972)2 S.C.R.799, and B.N.Nagarajan and others v. State of Karnataka and others B.N.Nagarajan and others v. State of Karnataka and others B.N.Nagarajan and others v. State of Karnataka and others (1979)4 S.C.C. 507: 1980 S.C.C.(L. & S.) 4: (1979)3 S.C.R.937, and referred to in para.15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of Courts or of Tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one 22/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 23 time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of Courts or of Tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub-judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. [Italics for emphasis]”
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 354 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next