Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.40 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tilak Chand vs State Of H.P And Others on 27 February, 2020
8 However, despite these decisions, the writ
respondents did not choose to regularize services of the writ
petitioners and aggrieved thereby the writ petitioners
approached this Court by filing CWP Nos. 6275/2012, titled as
Sanjay Gharu and ors. vs. State of H.P. and CWP No.
1497/2012, titled as Tilak Chand Sharma vs. State of H.P. &
ors., which came to be decided by this Court on 16.10.2024 in
the following terms:-
Manoj Kumar Son Of Shri Roop Singh & ... vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 6 September, 2016
12 However, despite having taken a decision to merge
the technical staff of HPSES with HPPW and I&PH Departments,
no consequent action was taken, which constrained the writ
petitioners to approach the Court again by filing CWPOA No.
5637 of 2020, titled as Manoj Kumar and others vs. State of
H.P. and others and CWPOA No. 5567 of 2020, titled as Bimla
Devi and others vs. State of H.P. and others.
Bimla Devi And Others vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 20 December, 2019
12 However, despite having taken a decision to merge
the technical staff of HPSES with HPPW and I&PH Departments,
no consequent action was taken, which constrained the writ
petitioners to approach the Court again by filing CWPOA No.
5637 of 2020, titled as Manoj Kumar and others vs. State of
H.P. and others and CWPOA No. 5567 of 2020, titled as Bimla
Devi and others vs. State of H.P. and others.
Nihal Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 7 August, 2013
relationship between the respondent-State and writ petitioners
and if that be so, then there is no justification for the writ
respondents to take a defence that after permitting utilization of
the services of large number of people like the writ petitioners
for decades to say that there are no sanctioned posts to absorb
the writ petitioners. After all, sanctioned posts do not fall from
heaven. The State has to create them by a conscious choice on
the basis of some rational assessment of the need as was held
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nihal Singh and Ors. Vs.
State of Punjab and Ors., (2013) 14 SCC 65.
Dhirendra Chamoli And Anr. vs State Of U.P. on 5 August, 1985
32 Any arrangement or agreement loaded in favour of
the respondents denying the right to claim regularization is
indubitably against public policy, as held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Dhirendera Chamoli and another vs.
State of U.P. (1986) 1 SCC 637.
Central Inland Water ... vs Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr on 6 April, 1986
33 In Central Inland Water Transport Corporation
Ltd. and another vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another AIR
1986 SC 1571, the Hon'ble Supreme Court declared the terms
in the appointment order as unconscionable terms of contract
and also held that the State must act as a model employer and
cannot take undue advantage of the need of the employee, who
does not have any choice in the matter of employment due to
the economic compulsions.
State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Piara Singh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 12 August, 1992
34 In State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh
and others (1992) 4 SCC 118, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that the main concern of the Court in such matters is to
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2024 21:42:11 :::CIS
18
ensure the rule of law and to see that the Executive acts fairly
and gives a fair deal to its employees consistent with the
.
Bhupendra Nath Hazarika & Anr vs State Of Assam & Ors on 30 November, 2012
35 In Bhupendra Nath Hazarika and another vs.
State of Assam and others (2013) 2 SCC 516 while laying
emphasis on the role of the State as a model employer, though
in a different context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as
under: