cites: 663896

State Of West Bengal And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Aghore Nath Dey And Ors. Etc. Etc on 2 April, 1993

Conclusions (A) & (B) of Maharashtra Engineering case were clarified and explained in State of West Bengal v. Aghore Nath Dey and it was held that the aforesaid two conclusions have to be read harmoniously, and conclusion (B) cannot cover cases, which are expressly excluded by conclusion (A). Conclusion (B) cannot include within its ambit those cases, which are expressly covered by the corollary in conclusion (A). Conclusion (B) was added to cover a different kind of situation, wherein the appointments are otherwise regular, except for the deficiency of certain procedural requirements laid down by the rules, and such deficiency in the procedural requirements has to be cured at the first available opportunity.

Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 170 - J S Verma - Full Document

G.P. Doval And Others vs The Chief Secretarygovernment Of U.P. ... on 18 July, 1984

5. The applicants' grievance is that their non-regularization from the date they were continuously officiating as Statistical Assistant on ad hoc basis is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents did not convene regular DPCs leading to present plight. Similarly situated officials, which have become part and parcel of SSS, were appointed on ad hoc basis, had been allowed to count their seniority from the date of their initial appointment and, therefore, the applicants have been treated differently and in violation of equality clause enshrined in the Constitution of India. The applicants have worked in the said post on continuous basis without any interruption or break of service. Strong reliance has been placed on order dated 22.7.1999 issued by the National Sample Survey Organization, Field Operations Division, whereby their equivalent grade known as Superintendent, were allowed retrospective regularization. Similarly, Senior Investigator of Central Statistical Organization were also allowed regularization retrospectively, & some dates being even as far as back five years. Reliance was placed on catena of judgments, namely, S.B. Patwardhan v. State of Maharashtra , Baleshawar Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh , G.P. Doval and Ors. v. Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh , G.S. Lamba v. Union of India , Narendra Chadha v. Union of India , Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Committee v. R.K. Kashyap (1989) Supp (1) SCC 194, Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272, N.S.K. Nayar v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 508 Gaya Baksh Yadav v. Union of India , Qamar Jahan v. Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal , M.H. Patel v. State of Maharashtra , L. Chandra Kishore Singh v. State of Manipur , Stae of Haryana v. Paira Singh , Syed Khalid Rizvi v. Union of India (1993) Supp (3) SCC 575, Uttar Pradesh Secretariat U.D.A. Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh , Union of India v. N.R. Banerjee 1999 (1) SLR 751 (SC), Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officer Association v. State of Maharashtra , Rudra Kumar Sain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. and orders passed by this Tribunal dated 27.11.2001 in OA No. 999/1999 Lalit Kumar and Ors. v. UOI and Ors., 22.1.2001 in OA No. 2766/1998 and OA No. 2153/2000 Anil Kumar Gupta v. UOI and Ors. Learned Counsel further contended that the impugned communication dated 6.3.2003 rejected their representations stating that there was 'no policy of the Government to counting ad hoc service towards seniority in the event of subsequent regularization.'

Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 83 - D A Desai - Full Document

Narender Chadha & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 February, 1986

5. The applicants' grievance is that their non-regularization from the date they were continuously officiating as Statistical Assistant on ad hoc basis is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents did not convene regular DPCs leading to present plight. Similarly situated officials, which have become part and parcel of SSS, were appointed on ad hoc basis, had been allowed to count their seniority from the date of their initial appointment and, therefore, the applicants have been treated differently and in violation of equality clause enshrined in the Constitution of India. The applicants have worked in the said post on continuous basis without any interruption or break of service. Strong reliance has been placed on order dated 22.7.1999 issued by the National Sample Survey Organization, Field Operations Division, whereby their equivalent grade known as Superintendent, were allowed retrospective regularization. Similarly, Senior Investigator of Central Statistical Organization were also allowed regularization retrospectively, & some dates being even as far as back five years. Reliance was placed on catena of judgments, namely, S.B. Patwardhan v. State of Maharashtra , Baleshawar Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh , G.P. Doval and Ors. v. Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh , G.S. Lamba v. Union of India , Narendra Chadha v. Union of India , Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Committee v. R.K. Kashyap (1989) Supp (1) SCC 194, Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272, N.S.K. Nayar v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 508 Gaya Baksh Yadav v. Union of India , Qamar Jahan v. Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal , M.H. Patel v. State of Maharashtra , L. Chandra Kishore Singh v. State of Manipur , Stae of Haryana v. Paira Singh , Syed Khalid Rizvi v. Union of India (1993) Supp (3) SCC 575, Uttar Pradesh Secretariat U.D.A. Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh , Union of India v. N.R. Banerjee 1999 (1) SLR 751 (SC), Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officer Association v. State of Maharashtra , Rudra Kumar Sain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. and orders passed by this Tribunal dated 27.11.2001 in OA No. 999/1999 Lalit Kumar and Ors. v. UOI and Ors., 22.1.2001 in OA No. 2766/1998 and OA No. 2153/2000 Anil Kumar Gupta v. UOI and Ors. Learned Counsel further contended that the impugned communication dated 6.3.2003 rejected their representations stating that there was 'no policy of the Government to counting ad hoc service towards seniority in the event of subsequent regularization.'

Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 187 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Delhi Water Supply And Sewage ... vs R.K. Kashyap And Or8 on 28 October, 1988

5. The applicants' grievance is that their non-regularization from the date they were continuously officiating as Statistical Assistant on ad hoc basis is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents did not convene regular DPCs leading to present plight. Similarly situated officials, which have become part and parcel of SSS, were appointed on ad hoc basis, had been allowed to count their seniority from the date of their initial appointment and, therefore, the applicants have been treated differently and in violation of equality clause enshrined in the Constitution of India. The applicants have worked in the said post on continuous basis without any interruption or break of service. Strong reliance has been placed on order dated 22.7.1999 issued by the National Sample Survey Organization, Field Operations Division, whereby their equivalent grade known as Superintendent, were allowed retrospective regularization. Similarly, Senior Investigator of Central Statistical Organization were also allowed regularization retrospectively, & some dates being even as far as back five years. Reliance was placed on catena of judgments, namely, S.B. Patwardhan v. State of Maharashtra , Baleshawar Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh , G.P. Doval and Ors. v. Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh , G.S. Lamba v. Union of India , Narendra Chadha v. Union of India , Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Committee v. R.K. Kashyap (1989) Supp (1) SCC 194, Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272, N.S.K. Nayar v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 508 Gaya Baksh Yadav v. Union of India , Qamar Jahan v. Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal , M.H. Patel v. State of Maharashtra , L. Chandra Kishore Singh v. State of Manipur , Stae of Haryana v. Paira Singh , Syed Khalid Rizvi v. Union of India (1993) Supp (3) SCC 575, Uttar Pradesh Secretariat U.D.A. Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh , Union of India v. N.R. Banerjee 1999 (1) SLR 751 (SC), Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officer Association v. State of Maharashtra , Rudra Kumar Sain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. and orders passed by this Tribunal dated 27.11.2001 in OA No. 999/1999 Lalit Kumar and Ors. v. UOI and Ors., 22.1.2001 in OA No. 2766/1998 and OA No. 2153/2000 Anil Kumar Gupta v. UOI and Ors. Learned Counsel further contended that the impugned communication dated 6.3.2003 rejected their representations stating that there was 'no policy of the Government to counting ad hoc service towards seniority in the event of subsequent regularization.'

Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 47 - K J Shetty - Full Document

Syed Khalid Rizvi And Ors. And Ramesh ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 20 November, 1992

5. The applicants' grievance is that their non-regularization from the date they were continuously officiating as Statistical Assistant on ad hoc basis is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents did not convene regular DPCs leading to present plight. Similarly situated officials, which have become part and parcel of SSS, were appointed on ad hoc basis, had been allowed to count their seniority from the date of their initial appointment and, therefore, the applicants have been treated differently and in violation of equality clause enshrined in the Constitution of India. The applicants have worked in the said post on continuous basis without any interruption or break of service. Strong reliance has been placed on order dated 22.7.1999 issued by the National Sample Survey Organization, Field Operations Division, whereby their equivalent grade known as Superintendent, were allowed retrospective regularization. Similarly, Senior Investigator of Central Statistical Organization were also allowed regularization retrospectively, & some dates being even as far as back five years. Reliance was placed on catena of judgments, namely, S.B. Patwardhan v. State of Maharashtra , Baleshawar Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh , G.P. Doval and Ors. v. Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh , G.S. Lamba v. Union of India , Narendra Chadha v. Union of India , Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Committee v. R.K. Kashyap (1989) Supp (1) SCC 194, Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272, N.S.K. Nayar v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 508 Gaya Baksh Yadav v. Union of India , Qamar Jahan v. Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal , M.H. Patel v. State of Maharashtra , L. Chandra Kishore Singh v. State of Manipur , Stae of Haryana v. Paira Singh , Syed Khalid Rizvi v. Union of India (1993) Supp (3) SCC 575, Uttar Pradesh Secretariat U.D.A. Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh , Union of India v. N.R. Banerjee 1999 (1) SLR 751 (SC), Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officer Association v. State of Maharashtra , Rudra Kumar Sain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. and orders passed by this Tribunal dated 27.11.2001 in OA No. 999/1999 Lalit Kumar and Ors. v. UOI and Ors., 22.1.2001 in OA No. 2766/1998 and OA No. 2153/2000 Anil Kumar Gupta v. UOI and Ors. Learned Counsel further contended that the impugned communication dated 6.3.2003 rejected their representations stating that there was 'no policy of the Government to counting ad hoc service towards seniority in the event of subsequent regularization.'

Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 258 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs N.R. Banerjee & Ors on 16 December, 1996

5. The applicants' grievance is that their non-regularization from the date they were continuously officiating as Statistical Assistant on ad hoc basis is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents did not convene regular DPCs leading to present plight. Similarly situated officials, which have become part and parcel of SSS, were appointed on ad hoc basis, had been allowed to count their seniority from the date of their initial appointment and, therefore, the applicants have been treated differently and in violation of equality clause enshrined in the Constitution of India. The applicants have worked in the said post on continuous basis without any interruption or break of service. Strong reliance has been placed on order dated 22.7.1999 issued by the National Sample Survey Organization, Field Operations Division, whereby their equivalent grade known as Superintendent, were allowed retrospective regularization. Similarly, Senior Investigator of Central Statistical Organization were also allowed regularization retrospectively, & some dates being even as far as back five years. Reliance was placed on catena of judgments, namely, S.B. Patwardhan v. State of Maharashtra , Baleshawar Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh , G.P. Doval and Ors. v. Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh , G.S. Lamba v. Union of India , Narendra Chadha v. Union of India , Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Committee v. R.K. Kashyap (1989) Supp (1) SCC 194, Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272, N.S.K. Nayar v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 508 Gaya Baksh Yadav v. Union of India , Qamar Jahan v. Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal , M.H. Patel v. State of Maharashtra , L. Chandra Kishore Singh v. State of Manipur , Stae of Haryana v. Paira Singh , Syed Khalid Rizvi v. Union of India (1993) Supp (3) SCC 575, Uttar Pradesh Secretariat U.D.A. Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh , Union of India v. N.R. Banerjee 1999 (1) SLR 751 (SC), Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officer Association v. State of Maharashtra , Rudra Kumar Sain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. and orders passed by this Tribunal dated 27.11.2001 in OA No. 999/1999 Lalit Kumar and Ors. v. UOI and Ors., 22.1.2001 in OA No. 2766/1998 and OA No. 2153/2000 Anil Kumar Gupta v. UOI and Ors. Learned Counsel further contended that the impugned communication dated 6.3.2003 rejected their representations stating that there was 'no policy of the Government to counting ad hoc service towards seniority in the event of subsequent regularization.'

Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 138 - Full Document

Direct Recruit Class Ii Engineering ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 May, 1990

5. The applicants' grievance is that their non-regularization from the date they were continuously officiating as Statistical Assistant on ad hoc basis is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents did not convene regular DPCs leading to present plight. Similarly situated officials, which have become part and parcel of SSS, were appointed on ad hoc basis, had been allowed to count their seniority from the date of their initial appointment and, therefore, the applicants have been treated differently and in violation of equality clause enshrined in the Constitution of India. The applicants have worked in the said post on continuous basis without any interruption or break of service. Strong reliance has been placed on order dated 22.7.1999 issued by the National Sample Survey Organization, Field Operations Division, whereby their equivalent grade known as Superintendent, were allowed retrospective regularization. Similarly, Senior Investigator of Central Statistical Organization were also allowed regularization retrospectively, & some dates being even as far as back five years. Reliance was placed on catena of judgments, namely, S.B. Patwardhan v. State of Maharashtra , Baleshawar Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh , G.P. Doval and Ors. v. Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh , G.S. Lamba v. Union of India , Narendra Chadha v. Union of India , Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Committee v. R.K. Kashyap (1989) Supp (1) SCC 194, Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272, N.S.K. Nayar v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 508 Gaya Baksh Yadav v. Union of India , Qamar Jahan v. Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal , M.H. Patel v. State of Maharashtra , L. Chandra Kishore Singh v. State of Manipur , Stae of Haryana v. Paira Singh , Syed Khalid Rizvi v. Union of India (1993) Supp (3) SCC 575, Uttar Pradesh Secretariat U.D.A. Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh , Union of India v. N.R. Banerjee 1999 (1) SLR 751 (SC), Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officer Association v. State of Maharashtra , Rudra Kumar Sain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. and orders passed by this Tribunal dated 27.11.2001 in OA No. 999/1999 Lalit Kumar and Ors. v. UOI and Ors., 22.1.2001 in OA No. 2766/1998 and OA No. 2153/2000 Anil Kumar Gupta v. UOI and Ors. Learned Counsel further contended that the impugned communication dated 6.3.2003 rejected their representations stating that there was 'no policy of the Government to counting ad hoc service towards seniority in the event of subsequent regularization.'

Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 915 - L M Sharma - Full Document

Rudra Kumar Sain & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 August, 2000

17. The ad-hoc officiation of the applicants as disclosed by them vide para-4.9 of the OA varies from about three years to twelve years. The emphasis laid on direct recruits judgment and various orders passed by this Tribunal following the aforesaid two judgments namely Narender Chadha and Direct Recruits Engineering, is thus not applicable in the peculiar facts of the present case. We are conscious of the fact that it is well settled that a settled service position cannot be unsettled after a reasonable period of time. Similarly, the reliance placed on Rudra Kumar Sain (supra) will not be justified in as much as appointment of the officials therein to the promotional post had been made 'after due consideration' which is not the claim laid. On the other hand, we are of the considered view that the applicants' promotion in the grade of Statistical Assistant was made in excess of the post available to promotion quota, which cannot be termed 'in accordance with the rules.' Therefore, such adhoc promotion, which no doubt some time may be for a fairly long period cannot be treated as a regular or permanent promotion and has to be treated as fortuitous or stop-gap arrangement. It is not the applicants' case that quota rota rule had broken down and they had taken recourse to judicial proceedings seeking such declaration. We do not find any illegality, arbitrariness etc in the impugned communication dated 6th March, 2003.

Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 214 - Full Document

Lalit Mohan Deb & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 February, 1972

5. The applicants' grievance is that their non-regularization from the date they were continuously officiating as Statistical Assistant on ad hoc basis is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents did not convene regular DPCs leading to present plight. Similarly situated officials, which have become part and parcel of SSS, were appointed on ad hoc basis, had been allowed to count their seniority from the date of their initial appointment and, therefore, the applicants have been treated differently and in violation of equality clause enshrined in the Constitution of India. The applicants have worked in the said post on continuous basis without any interruption or break of service. Strong reliance has been placed on order dated 22.7.1999 issued by the National Sample Survey Organization, Field Operations Division, whereby their equivalent grade known as Superintendent, were allowed retrospective regularization. Similarly, Senior Investigator of Central Statistical Organization were also allowed regularization retrospectively, & some dates being even as far as back five years. Reliance was placed on catena of judgments, namely, S.B. Patwardhan v. State of Maharashtra , Baleshawar Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh , G.P. Doval and Ors. v. Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh , G.S. Lamba v. Union of India , Narendra Chadha v. Union of India , Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Committee v. R.K. Kashyap (1989) Supp (1) SCC 194, Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272, N.S.K. Nayar v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 508 Gaya Baksh Yadav v. Union of India , Qamar Jahan v. Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal , M.H. Patel v. State of Maharashtra , L. Chandra Kishore Singh v. State of Manipur , Stae of Haryana v. Paira Singh , Syed Khalid Rizvi v. Union of India (1993) Supp (3) SCC 575, Uttar Pradesh Secretariat U.D.A. Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh , Union of India v. N.R. Banerjee 1999 (1) SLR 751 (SC), Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officer Association v. State of Maharashtra , Rudra Kumar Sain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. and orders passed by this Tribunal dated 27.11.2001 in OA No. 999/1999 Lalit Kumar and Ors. v. UOI and Ors., 22.1.2001 in OA No. 2766/1998 and OA No. 2153/2000 Anil Kumar Gupta v. UOI and Ors. Learned Counsel further contended that the impugned communication dated 6.3.2003 rejected their representations stating that there was 'no policy of the Government to counting ad hoc service towards seniority in the event of subsequent regularization.'

Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 112 - Full Document

Masood Akhtar Khan And Ors. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 16 July, 1990

Reliance placed by the respondents on judgements, namely, Masood Akhtar Khan v. State of MP 1993 (4) SC 24, UOI v. S.K. Sharma JT 1992 (2) 491, Dr. M.A. Haque v. UOI , State of West Bengal v. Aghore Nath Dey and S.K. Saha v. P.P. Agarwal JT 1993 (6) SC 441 did not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the issue raised therein are not similar to those raised in present OAs. Shri S.K. Dass, learned Counsel further pointed out that the preliminary objection raised by the respondents, namely, non-joinder of parties and limitation, has no force inasmuch as the officials likely to be effected by the grant of any relief in the present OA have already been impleaded as respondents No. 4 - 19. Similarly, the applicants have impugned communication dated 6.3.2003 rejecting their representation as on earlier occasion they had filed OA No. 2004/2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 1.8.2002.

Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 113 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results