Back
B. R. GAVAI, J. B. PARDIWALA
Raman Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge of contempt due to non-regularization. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. principle of regularization for long-serving employees. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. discrimination in regularization violates article 14. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. order for regularization and payment of benefits. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is taken up for final hearing.
3. This appeal challenges the order passed by the High Court dated 09.12.2019, vide which the High Court has disposed of the contempt petition holding that there is no contempt in view of the affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Hqrs.) dated 06.12.2019.
4. The matter arises out of regularization of the employees. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax in his report dated 14.02.2013 found that, in the exercise conducted in pursuance of the judgment of this Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi and Others , 2006 (4) SCC 1, though 65 employees were found to be entitled for regularization, only 35 employees were regularized. This was done since only 35 vacancies were available.
5. 16 persons out of the remaining 30 employees filed contempt petitions alleging that the resp
The court reinforced the principle that long-serving temporary employees are entitled to regularization under specific legal frameworks, and non-compliance with court orders can lead to contempt proc....
The rejection of regularization claims for contract workers must be based on thorough consideration of applicable Government Orders rather than solely on employment status.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that reinstated daily wagers are eligible for regularization in accordance with the circular dated 5.3.2008, and the respondent authorities must de....
Regularization of employees must comply with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, and any regularization contrary to these principles is illegal.
The court reinforced that compliance with its orders is mandatory, and failure to do so, despite prior admissions, constitutes contempt.
The court established that compliance with prior court orders regarding employment regularization is mandatory, and failure to do so can result in contempt findings.
Regularization of services for employees who have served for over ten years is a right that must be considered by the state, provided there are no valid objections, and the state must adhere to its o....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
