SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1722

K.RAMASWAMY, G.B.PATTANAIK
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
Bishamber Dutt – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

2. These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi.

3. The admitted position is that the respondent along with others came to be appointed on September 3, 1990, November 14, 1991 and September 14, 1994 as Class IV employees in the office of the Controller of Defence Accounts on part-time basis. There is a controversy as to whether they are appointed on hourly basis or on regular basis. The admitted position is that they were receiving the consolidated pay of Rs.500/- per month which was raised to Rs.600/- per month for working six hours a day. It is not necessary to consider the case whether it is full-time or hourly basis or monthly basis. Suffice it to state that they were not appointed to a regular post after selection according to rules; they were appointed as part-time employees de hors the rules. The question, therefore, is : whether they are entitled to the temporary status or regularisation as directed by the Tribunal? It is seen that pursuant to the enquiry whether temporary status should be granted to the part-time employees, directions



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top