Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.25 seconds)Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Piara Singh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 12 August, 1992
20. We may now consider, State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh and Others
[1992) 3 SCR 826]. There, the court was considering the sustainability of
certain directions issued by the High Court in the light of various orders
passed by the State for the absorption of its ad hoc or temporary employees
and daily wagers or casual labour. This Court started by saying:
Supreme Court Reports [1962] Supp.Dr. ... vs The Governing Body Of The Nalanda ... on 15 December, 1961
43. Normally, what is sought for by such temporary employees when they
approach the court, is the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the
employer, the State or its instrumentalities, to absorb them in permanent
service or to allow them to continue. In this context, the question arises
whether a mandamus could be issued in favour of such persons. At this
juncture, it will be proper to refer to the decision of the Constitution
Bench of this Court in Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur Vs. The Governing Body of
the Nalanda College [(1962) Supp. 2 SCR 144]. That case arose out of a
refusal to promote the writ petitioner therein as the Principal of a college.
This Court held that in order that a mandamus may issue to compel the
authorities to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a
legal duty on the authority and the aggrieved party had a legal right under
the statute or rule to enforce it. This classical position continues and a
mandamus could not be issued in favour of the employees directing the
government to make them permanent since the employees cannot show that they
have an enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed or that the State
has a legal duty to make them permanent.
2Ec.To Govt.,School Education ... vs Thiru R.Govindaswamy & Ors on 21 February, 2014
10. By following the above Constitutional Bench judgment, once again
the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated in the case of SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI v. R.GOVINDASWAMY AND ORS.[ (2014) 4 SCC
769]. In paragraph No.8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Daya Lal & Ors on 13 January, 2011
?8.this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lal & Ors., AIR 2011
SC 1193, has considered the scope of regularisation of irregular or part-time
appointments in all possible eventualities and laid down well-settled
principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay relevant in the
context of the issues involved therein. The same are as under: