Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)
Chakali Narayana vs The State Of Telangana on 7 July, 2025 cites

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

"41.... In view of the categorical finding of fact on the relevant contentious issue that the respondent employees have continued in their service for more than 10 years continuously therefore, the legal principle laid down by this Court in Umadevi case (State of Karnataka v Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 73) at para 53 squarely applies to the present cases. The Division Bench of the High Court has rightly held that the respondent employees are entitled for the relief, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court."
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 4959 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

Court In The Case Of Secretary, State Of ... vs . Uma on 9 April, 2015

It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years should be considered for regularization as a one- time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 1 - Cited by 2142 - Full Document

Nihal Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 7 August, 2013

E) In the Judgment of the Apex Court in Nihal Singh and others v. State of Punjab reported in (2013) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the 27 SN, J appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authority of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also refused to accept the defence that there were no sanctioned posts and so there was justification for the State to utilise services of large number of people like the appellants for decades. It held that "sanctioned posts do not fall from heaven" and that the State has to create them by a conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment of need. Referring to Umadevi, it held that the appellants before them were not arbitrarily chosen, their initial appointment was not an 'irregular' appointment as it had been made in accordance with the statutory procedure prescribed under the Police Act, 1861, and the State cannot be heard to say that they are not entitled to be absorbed into the services of the State on permanent basis as, according to it, their appointments were purely 28 SN, J temporary and not against any sanctioned posts created by the State. It was held that the judgment in Umadevi cannot become a licence for exploitation by the State and its instrumentalities and neither the Government of Punjab nor those public sector Banks can continue such a practice inconsistent with their obligation to function in accordance with the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 491 - Full Document

Amarkant Rai vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 13 March, 2015

G) In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar reported (2015) 8 SCC 265, the Supreme Court held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularisation of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure security of employment of those persons who had served the State Government and their instrumentalities for more than ten years". In that case, employee was working for 29 years. This decision approves earlier view expressed in M.L.Kesari extracted above.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 755 - R Banumathi - Full Document
1   2 Next