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

1996 Supreme(SC) 136

A. M. AHMADI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR
Raj Narain Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent


ORDER

1. The question is regarding the regularisation of work-charged employees and muster-roll labour employed on different projects by the State of U.P. at different points of time. The respondent-State has furnished a list of almost 13 thousand such employees employed zonewise as per Annexure A-1 to the additional affidavit on behalf of the State. These are divided into two groups, namely, 7744 work-charged employees and 5516 muster-roll employees. A separate list of employees claiming regularisation in various pending cases has been appended as Annexure A-3. A list of employees who came to be regularised pursuant to orders made by this Court from time to time since after 16-3-1993 is appended as Annexure A-4. Annexure A-5 gives the list of vacant posts available in the regular establishment at the relevant point of time. The State of U.P. also contends that on account of financial constraints, it was forced to show down in pace of work for as many as 7 important projects. Pursuant to our order dated 11-10-1993 and in the light of the observations made in the State of Haryana v. Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 825 : (1992) 21 ATC 403] we are told that the State ha




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