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

2015 Supreme(SC) 193

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, N.V.RAMANA
GRAH RAKSHAK, HOME GUARDS WEL. ASSO. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF H. P. – Respondent


Judgment

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.

Delay condoned. Applications for deletion of proforma respondents, substitution and permission to file SLP are allowed. Leave granted.

2. As these appeals involve a common question of law, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The appellants herein are individuals who are Home Guards of States of Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and National Capital of Territory of Delhi (‘N.C.T of Delhi’ for short). They and their Association moved before High Courts in their respective States seeking regularization of their services by filing writ petitions. The judgments and orders impugned herein are those passed by the High Courts in such writ petitions. By the impugned judgments and orders, the High Courts dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants.

4. The questions involved in these appeals are whether Home Guards of States of Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and N.C.T of Delhi are regular appointees in the cadre/services of Home Guards and if not whether they are entitled for regularization of their services.

5




















































































































































































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