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

1997 Supreme(SC) 1209

SUJATA V.MANOHAR, G.T.NANAVATI
Ramchander – Appellant
Versus
Additional District Magistrate – Respondent


( 1 ) FOUR appellants who are before us were appointed as Lekhpals under the Uttar Pradesh Board of Revenue on ad hoc basis. The dates of their appointments, as set out in the impugned judgment are - Appellant 1, 12/11/1980; Appellant 2, 11/3/1981; Appellant 3, 6/10/1982; and Appellant 4, 12/11/1982. Their services were terminated under orders issued in 1984. Copies of only two orders of termination are annexed. The first order is dated 24/2/1984. The name of the employee is left blank in the copy. The second order bears the name of the first appellant. But the date is incomplete. It is of June 1984. Apart from staling that termination orders are, dated 24/2/1984/2/6/1984, learned counsel for both the sides are unable to produce anything more. Both the termination orders refer to earlier order of 17/2/1984.

( 2 ) IN 1979, the U. P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (on posts outside the purview of public service commission) Rules were promulgated. Rule 4 of the 1979 Rules provides as follows:

"4. Regularisation of ad hoc appointments.- (1 Any person who-

(I) was directly appointed on ad hoc basis before 1/01/1977 and is continuing in service, as such, on the date of commencement







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