Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)Section 4 in The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Court In The Case Of Secretary, State Of ... vs . Uma on 9 April, 2015
In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Narendra Kumar Tiwari the appellants were the irregularly appointed
employees of the State Government and they sought regularization of
their status on the ground that they had put more than 10 years of
service; Constitutional Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of "State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi" (supra) did not
permit their regularization since they had not worked for 10 years on
the cut-off date of 10.04.2006 as the State of Jharkhand was created
only on 15.11.2000 and therefore, no one could have completed 10
years of service with the State of Jharkhand on the cut- off date on
10.04.2006; the State had issued certain resolutions for regularization
of some employees of the State who had obviously not put in 10 years
of service with the State and consequently, a plea of discrimination
was also raised.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Narendra Kumar Tiwari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 August, 2018
26. This Court finds that the judgment in the case of "Narendra
Kumar Tiwari" (Supra) was dealing with those employees who were
irregularly or illegally appointed, but in the present case, the
appointments made by the respondents under the aforesaid Act of
2005 under the scheme upon payment of monthly honorarium on
contractual basis which is neither illegal nor irregular, since, the same
is in consonance with the provisions of the Act of 2005 and the
scheme framed thereunder. The petitioners as a matter of right cannot
claim to be regularized unless an appropriate scheme is framed by the
Central Government/State Government to consider their case for
regularization. The scheme for regularization which has been framed
by the State Government does not apply to the petitioners or similarly
situated persons.
Delhi Development Horticulture ... vs Delhi Administration, Delhi And Ors on 4 February, 1992
7. The learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the
similar issue with regard to Jawahar Rozgar Yojna has been
decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement reported
in (1992) 4 SCC 99 (Delhi Development Horticulture Employees'
Union Vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi and Others) (para 22). He
submits that there is no question of any selective application of any
scheme for regularization with regard to MNREGA. He also
submits that if any such scheme is floated by the government, the
same would certainly take care of all the districts as per policy.
The learned counsel submits that as on date, there is no scheme for
regularization for MNREGA employees and therefore, no relief can
be granted to the petitioners.
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005
Dharo Oraon And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand And Others ... ... ... on 1 February, 2018
28. So far as the judgment relied upon by the petitioners in the case
of W.P.(S) No. 1021 of 2020 (Dharo Oraon and others Vs. State of
Jharkhand and others) and other analogous cases, paragraph no.5 of
the said judgment is the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the petitioners of the said case relating to persons employed under
MNREGA. The cause of action of the writ petitions has been
mentioned in paragraph 2 of the judgment as under:
Section 1 in The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
1