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

2026 Supreme(SC) 168

J. K. MAHESHWARI, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
Pawan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Prashant Shukla, Adv. Ms. Anushree Shukla, Adv. Mr. Kartik Kumar, Adv. M/S. Prashant Shukla Law Chambers, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. K Parameshwar, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kr, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba Aor, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR M/S. Prashant Shukla Law Chambers, AOR

Judgement Key Points

No legal document content was provided within the tags. Please provide the full document or key excerpts for analysis, and specify the query or task (e.g., summarize key points, extract clauses, identify risks). I'll reference relevant sections using the required format, such as (!) (!) .


JUDGMENT :

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants having registered themselves with the Employment Exchange claim to have worked as casual workers with the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior for a considerable period of time. Under the expectation that they would be conferred temporary status and their services would be thereafter regularized, the appellants initially made representations to the Income Tax Department. On their request not being accepted, the appellants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench1 [For short the ‘Tribunal’] by preferring Original Application No. 719 of 2012 with a prayer to consider their cases for regularization in service. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 13.05.2015 held that the services of the appellants were not liable to be regularized on the ground that they did not fulfil the basic criteria of regular service for a period of ten years as on 10.04.2006 in terms of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi and Others, 2006 INSC 216. Being aggrieved, the appellants approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the aforesaid decision. By the judgment dated

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