cancellation/modification of office order no. 357 dated 06.07.2015 setting aside retrospective regularisation of petitioners. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to expedite ... petitioners were thereafter regularised by means office order dated 06.07.2015 granting retrospective regularisation to petitioners with effect from date of initial engagement in service. Aforesaid
hence the claim of the petitioner for retrospective regularisation be also considered by the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at some
relevant but what is relevant is that regularisation should be prospective and not retrospective as the chances of their upsetting the seniorities cannot be overlooked ... must take care to see that when they pass orders of regularisation from retrospective dates, those who are likely to be affected on account
held that regularisation is not and cannot be a mode of recruitment.
A Fortiori, there cannot be a right of regularisation with retrospective effect from ... already held that the regularisation should be prospective and not retrospective so that seniority of those, who are already in service, is not affected. This
relevant but what is relevant is that regularisation should be prospective and not retrospective as the chances of their upsetting the seniorities cannot be overlooked ... must take care to see that when they pass orders of regularisation from retrospective dates, those who are likely to be affected on account
very well claimed regularisation from the date of regularisation of their juniors or for that matter they could have claimed regularisation of their services ... Most important it is not a case of consideration for regularisation with retrospective effect rather it is a case of being considered for regularisation from
Prakash Padia, on the other hand, has urged that the orders of regularisation in favour of Smt. Parveen are illegal. He contends that the finding ... order dated 31.5.2003 is illegal as the benefit of regularisation cannot be granted with retrospective effect as the provisions under Section 33-C contemplate appointment
considered opinion, such appointee can not claim his regularisation or substantive appointment with retrospective effect from the date of his initial appointment on daily wage ... have been made earlier to 31.5.2002 under said Rules, as such the regularisation of the petitioner initially made by respondent no.2 vide order dated
temporary post of Stenographer on 2.4.1979 and continued as such till his regularisation, the petitioner nos.2,3 & 4 were also appointed ... petitioners on the ground that the regularisation of the respondent no.2 was with retrospective effect and as such the respondent no.2 was senior
till 17.6.1992 (when petitioner was regularised by Selection Committee under Regularisation Rules, 1988) cannot be ignored and it must b computed while determining inter ... vacancy year or the said order dated 17.6.1992 contemplated regularisation of the petitioner with retrospective effect.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, in support
