Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 36 (0.57 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bhagwati Prasad And Ors vs Delhi State Mineral Development ... on 15 December, 1989
The words "period of break in service which was longer than three months has to be excluded" when read with the quoted observations of Bhagwati Prasad (supra), it is intended to mean that for the purpose of determination of the issue as to whether a daily wage registration clerks was in "continuous service" as per Rule 4 of 1979 Rules (iii) between the cut off dates i.e. the date of actual appointment which had to be on or before 01.10.1986 and the date of judgement in Khagesh Kumar (supra) dated 12.04.1996; breaks of less than 3 months were not to be taken as having caused a break in the continuous service of the employee. It is only the breaks of a period more than 3 months which will result in the continuity of the employment being broken. The above phrase is with respect to determination of the issue of "continuity in service" and not with reference to any method of counting the period of 3 years.
The Registration Act, 1908
Khagesh Kumar & Ors vs Inspector General Of Registration & Ors on 27 September, 1995
"3. the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners canvassed that the order passed by the Inspector General, Registration proceed upon misconstruction of the directions given by the Apex Court in Khagesh Kumar (supra).
Court In The Case Of Secretary, State Of ... vs . Uma on 9 April, 2015
In State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Keshari, 2010 (9) SCC 247, the principles of regularization enunciated in Uma Devi (supra) have been elucidated, paragraph nos.7 and 11 of the said pronouncement are relevant to be reproduced hereunder:-
State Of Karnataka & Ors vs M.L. Kesari & Ors on 3 August, 2010
In State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Keshari, 2010 (9) SCC 247, the principles of regularization enunciated in Uma Devi (supra) have been elucidated, paragraph nos.7 and 11 of the said pronouncement are relevant to be reproduced hereunder:-
Ashok Kumar Gupta , Vidya Sagar Gupta & ... vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 21 March, 1997
Their writ petition was decided finally on 24.01.2000 in the same terms of the directions in another writ petition no.885 (S/S) of 1997 (Ashok Kumar Vs. State of U.P.). The writ petition no.885 of 1997 was disposed of on 07.09.1998 with the observation that since the petitioner therein was working for more than 12 years, his services be regularized. The Special Leave to Appeal filed by the State was dismissed. Sri Ashok Kumar, the petitioner in writ petition no.885 (S/S) of 1997 was regularized.
Chairman And Managing Director Fci vs Jagdish Balaram Bahira on 6 July, 2017
Etc (Chairman & Managing Director FCI & others Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira & others and; of the Full Bench judgement of this Court in Vijay Singh & others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others reported in 2005 2 AWC 1191 ALL (F.B).