Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.47 seconds)Article 41 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. Literate ... vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 23 February, 1990
To add to these line of authorities, there is recent decision of Supreme Court in the case of The Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wages Employees Association v. State of Karnataka and Ors. . In this case the petitioners applied for direction to confirm the daily and monthly rated employees as regular Govt. servants and for payment of normal salary at the rates prescribed for the appropriate categories of Govt. servants and other service benefits. After undertaking exercise of referring to the binding precedents of the Court rendered within the current decade the Supreme Court directed the State Government to regularise the casual/daily rated employees as per the directions contained in the judgment. Security of service and equal pay for equal work were the twin objectives which are to be achieved by regularising casual employment within reasonable period. That is the constitutional goal to our socialistic policy. The present case is not, in anyway, different from the case before the Supreme Court. The casual or daily rated employment of the petitioners has continued rather too long. Even when vacancies have occurred or sanctioned posts were available the Reserve Bank of India did not think it fit to recruit and regularise the present petitioners. It instead proceeded to prepare separate list by following the very procedure of selection which is being followed for the purpose of recruiting Tikka Mazdoors. When the daily wage (tikka) mazdoors were available for recruitment and when they have already worked in the Bank for more than five years, i.e., from 1984 onwards, there was no justification in denying their just claim for absorption and or regularisation. It was not case of non-availability of sanctioned posts. Even in such cases the Supreme Court was directed regularisation of employees.
Surinder Singh And Anr. vs Engineer-In-Chief, C.P.W.D. And Ors. on 17 January, 1986
Once again, in the case of Surinder Singh and Anr. v. The Engineer in Chief, C.P.W.D. and Ors. , the Court observed that the Central Government, the State Government and likewise, all public sector undertakings are expected to function like model and enlightened employees.
Govindbhai Somabhai Nai And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 3 April, 1987
In this behalf Mr. Vakil invites my attention to the decision of this Court in the case of Govindbhai Somabhai Nai v. State of Gujarat and Ors. . The case was under the Bombay Land Revenue Code. There was delegation of power by State Government to District Panchayat for granting permission to non-agricultural use. There was further scope of delegation from District Panchayat to Taluka Panchayat. The Government passed two orders, one delegating powers to District Panchayat and by the second directions issued to District Panchayat to delegate the powers in a given case to Taluka Panchayat. District Panchayat, however, did not delegate the powers to Taluka Panchayat, yet the Taluka Panchayat i.e., Taluka Development Officer exercised powers and granted permission for non-agricultural use. The petitioner objected for the same. Thereupon, petitioners approached the Court and requested the Court that they have already put their land for non-agriculatural use because of permission granted by Taluka Development Officer and that the Court should regularise said permission even if it is found that the Taluka Development Officer has no such power. It was in this context that this Court observed that the officer exercising power was totally an intruder inasmuch as he has no power to grant permission for non-agricultural use of agricultural land. Exercise of powers by him was ab initio void and nullity. Such orders passed by an officer who has no authority cannot be protected or saved by invoking the de facto doctrine. I fail to appreciate as to how this principle would apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The authority that employed the daily wage (tikka) mazdoors is the Reserve Bank of India. It is not its case that it does not possess the authority or power to employ daily wage that it does not possess the authority or power to employ daily wage (tikka) mazdoors. While employing daily wage (tikka) mazdoors it has, in fact followed the procedure which is required to be followed for the purpose of recruiting regular mazdoors of Clause IV service. Petitioners were qualified and eligible for being recruited to the post of daily wage (tikka) mazdoors. They were, in fact, waitlisted and offered work thereafter since 1984 till 1990.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 38 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Randhir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 February, 1982
In this connection, my attention is drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India and Ors. . In that case the Court was called upon to apply the principle of equal pay for equal work. The Court found that though the equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Government and expert bodies like the Pay Commission and not for Courts but where all things are equal, that is where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differentially in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments.
Dhirendra Chamoli And Anr. vs State Of U.P. on 5 August, 1985
This very principle was applied in the case of Dhirendra Chamoli and Anr. v. State of U.P. . To a claim for equal pay for equal work put forward by casual workers of Nehru Yuvak Kendra, Dehradun, the defence of Government of India was that the Nehru Yuvak Kendra was a temporary organisation running since last 12 years and that there were no sanctioned posts of Clause IV employees. Supreme Court negatived the contention in the following words:
1