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

2012 Supreme(Kar) 445

SUBHASH B.ADI
M. L Seehta – Appellant
Versus
Krishna – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:S. R. Hegde Hudlamane, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1, R3, Raghavendra G. Gayathri, HCGP.

Judgment

1. Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondents in W.P. Nos.16779-16785 of 2012.

2. The Government by issuing an advertisement inviting the applications from the qualified candidates, has appointed these petitioners for the purpose of supervision of the Libraries established at various Grama Panchayats. These petitioners claim that they have been appointed as Library Supervisors and are working for several years. However, their services have not been regularized.

3. The Government had issued a circular dated 02.01.2001 prescribing certain guidelines in the matter of appointing Library Supervisors on honorarium. Initially, these petitioners were paid Rs.300/-per month, which was increased to Rs.500/-, further, increased from: Rs.500/-to Rs.750/-; Rs.750/-to Rs.1,000/-; Rs.1,000/-to Rs.1,500/-and now, they are being paid Rs.2,500/-per month.

4. Some of the petitioners claim to have been working for more than 10 years continuously and some of them for more than 5 years. It is also stated that they work for eight hours a day. However, due to shortage of power supply, they are working for seven hours a day. The duties and responsibilities of these perso




















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