Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.26 seconds)
Sunil Kumar Saxena S/O Chander Prakash ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through Secretary, ... on 12 October, 2006 cites

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

Furthermore, in Umadevi (3) (supra) the issues of absorption, regularization of ad hoc employees appointed/recruited and continued for long in public employment de hors the constitutional scheme of public employment, have been settled once for all. It has been held therein that a contractual appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, an appointment on daily wages or casual basis comes to an end when it is discontinued, and a temporary appointment comes to an end on the expiry of its term. No employees so appointed can claim to be made permanent on the expiry of their appointments. When regular vacancies in posts are to be filled up, a regular process of recruitment or appointment has to be resorted to as per the constitutional scheme, and cannot be done in a haphazard manner based on patronage or other considerations. It was also held therein that there is no legitimate expectation to be absorbed or regularized in public employment on basis of such relief having been granted to similarly placed employees under certain orders of Court. OM dated 26.10.1984 as well as OM dated 7.6.1988 cannot be read in isolation particularly when the scheme for grant of temporary status and regularization has been notified by DOP & T OM dated 10.9.1993 which introduced the concept of temporary status before undertaking the process of regularization.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 4959 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

Mahendra L. Jain & Ors vs Indore Development Authority & Ors on 22 November, 2004

8. We may note that in Mahendra L. Jain and Ors. v. Indore Development Authority and Ors. 2005 (1) SLR 39, the Hon'ble Supreme Curt had held that daily wagers in absence of statutory provisions in this behalf could not be entitled to regularization. The process of regularization involves regular appointment which can be done in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The 1993 Scheme envisaged that casual labourers in employment on 1.9.1993 could be accorded temporary status on fulfilment of certain conditions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 349 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Prem Kumar And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 5 September, 2005

After a detailed discussion of various aspects of the matter in OA No. 409/2005 - Prem Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. this Tribunal held on 5.9.2005 that a cumulative reading of OM dated 26.10.1984 and OM dated 7.6.1988 and the 1993 Scheme would indeed go to show that it was not a mandate of these OMs that whosoever and whenever completing 240/206 days of service in two consecutive years should be regularized. OM dated 7.6.1988 would show that if the eligible casual workers could not be adjusted against regular posts and their further retention was not considered necessary, they were to be discharged from service. Obviously, these OMs had been a one-time exercise and not an ongoing process. It was not the object and the purport of the said OMs that as and when the persons complete 240/206 days in two consecutive years they would have to be regularized by the Government as a matter of right. The cumulative reading of OMs dated 26.10.1984 and 7.6.1988 indicates that they do not create any vested rights for regularization. It merely enables the organization to consider them for regular appointment to Group 'D' posts, if they are otherwise eligible. In other words, it could not be treated as an ongoing process and has to be restricted to a one-time measure alone.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1