Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)
Tusar Ranjan Satapathy vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 30 July, 2025 cites

State Of Karnataka & Ors vs M.L. Kesari & Ors on 3 August, 2010

11. Elaboration upon the principles laid down in Umadevi (3) Case and explaining the difference between irregular and illegal appointments in State of Karnataka Vs. M.L Kesari, this Court held as under (ML Kesari case SSC p 250, para 7) 7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularisation enunciated in Umadevi (3). if the following conditions are fulfilled:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1834 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Court In The Case Of Secretary, State Of ... vs . Uma on 9 April, 2015

3. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner was engaged as Night Watcher in the office of ICDS, Ramanguda, Rayagada w.e.f. 05.11.1997. It is contended that since the petitioner was allowed to continue on daily wages basis w.e.f. 05.11.1997 without being protected by any interim order passed by any Court of law, he became eligible to get the benefit of regularization in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) (2006) 4 SCC-
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 1 - Cited by 2142 - Full Document

Nihal Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 7 August, 2013

12. Applying the ratio of Umadevi (3) case, this Court in Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab directed the absorption of the Special Police Officers in the services of the State of holding as under: (Nihal Singh Case, SCC pp. 79-80, paras- 35-36) "35. Therefore, it is clear that the existence of the need for creation of the posts is a relevant factor with reference to which the executive government is required to take rational decision based on relevant consideration. In our opinion, when the facts such as the ones obtaining in the instant case demonstrate that there is need for the creation of posts, the failure extracting work from persons such as the appellants herein for decades together itself would he arbitrary action (inaction) on the part of the State. 36. The other factor which the State is required to keep in mind while creating or abolishing posts is the financial implications involved in such a decision. The creation of posts necessarily means additional financial burden on the exchequer of the State. Depending upon the priorities of the State, the allocation of the finances is no doubt Page 10 of 18 // 11 // exclusively within the domain of the legislature. However in the instant case creation of new posts would not create any additional financial burden to the State as the Various banks at whose disposal the services of each of the appellants is made available have agreed to bear the burden. If absorbing the appellants into the services of the State and providing benefits on a par with the police officers of similar rank employed by the State results in the banks to meet such additional burden Apparently no such demand has ever been made by the State. The result is the various banks which avail the services of these appellants enjoy the supply of cheap labour over a period of decades. It is also pertinent to notice that these banks are public sector banks
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 491 - Full Document
1