Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.26 seconds)

Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006

36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularised in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularised under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularised of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularised. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularisation as others have been regularised, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension."

Prem Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh Secretary on 2 September, 2019

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, all the orders impugned in the writ petitions are passed either on the ground that they are covered by the Ordinance/Act of 2021 or they were not party in case of Prem Singh (supra) or without considering the judgment of Prem Singh (supra) and hence, the same are squarely covered by the finding given above. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot stand and are set aside. However, petitioners shall be entitled to past pensionary benefits for last three years only.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 898 - A Mishra - Full Document

Dr. Shyam Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush ... on 17 February, 2023

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to receive all pensionary benefits as has already been held in the judgment and order dated 17.02.2023 passed in a bunch of writ petitions, leading one is Writ-A No.8968 of 2022 (Dr. Shyam Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & another), wherein issue relating to interpretation and application of Section 2 of the Act of 2021 for counting qualifying service for the purpose of pension with regard to daily wager has been dealt with in detail by this Court. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads:
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 23 - V Chaudhary - Full Document

Yashwant Hari Katakkar vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 September, 1994

"....14. It is settled since long that daily wager employees are entitled to pensionary benefits counting their services from the date of their initial appointment and not from the date of their regularization. Suffice would be to refer to the judgment in cases of Hari Shankar Asopa vs. State of U.P. and another, 1989(1) UPLBEC 501; Yashwant Hari Katakkar vs. Union of India and others, 1996 (7) SCC 113; and Prem Singh (supra). In fact earlier they were covered by Rule 2 of U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 and other Civil Services Regulations.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 98 - Full Document
1