Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)Union Of India vs Gagan Kumar on 27 July, 2005
Further, in UOI v Gagan Kumar -
(2005) 6 SCC 70, it was held that the 1993 scheme applies only to those in
service as on the date of the commencement of the scheme. Complying
with the orders of the Tribunal in OA 1160/2012, request for regularization
was examined and rejected vide order dated 03.11.2014, since the
applicants are working as outsiders. Besides, as per Uma Devi judgment,
Page 4 of 11
OA No.61/2015
entry into public service in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution is not
permitted. Applicants worked against multiple posts and that they were not
converted into full time casual labour.
State Of Karnataka & Ors vs M.L. Kesari & Ors on 3 August, 2010
passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making
permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
Uma Devi judgment was further elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Karnataka and Ors v M.L.Kesari and Ors. in Civil
Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 15774/2006 vide judgment dt.
03.08.2010, wherein it was held that the judgment in Uma Devi judgment is
not a one-time affair as under:
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
"4. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered on
10.4.2006 (reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1). In that case, a Constitution Bench of
this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or
the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees
and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re- engagement
nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue
directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless
the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the
constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that
they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by
the State or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to
facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This
Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage
employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had
been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the
above position and the same is extracted below :
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dr. Basa Raheshwar Rao, S/. Bhoomaiah, ... vs 1. Sakkubai Nagar Co- Operating Housin ... on 11 April, 2017
There is
no employee - employer relationship. The applicants in OA 398/1998 were
working as full time casual labourers whereas the applicants in the instant
OA are working as outsiders in vacancies of part time casual labourers.
Applicants are not eligible to be considered under the 1993 Scheme.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.O.I. v. Sakkubai in Civil Appeal No.360-361
of 1994 has held that the full time casual labourers are eligible to be paid at
the minimum of the Group D pay scale.
1