V. M. VELUMANI, RAI CHATTOPADHYAY
Mangal Singh – Appellant
Versus
Calcutta State Transport Corporation – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rai Chattopadhyay, J.
1. This appeal has been filed to challenge the order dated February 12, 2018 of the Hon’ble Single Bench, delivered in writ petition being W.P No. 13747 (w) of 2016. The prayer of the writ petitioner for regularisation of his service with the respondent Corporation was turned down by the Hon’ble Single Bench by dint of the said judgment.
2. The Court took notice of the fact of indigent financial condition of the respondent Corporation. The Court also took notice of the fact of availability of no vacancy with the respondent Corporation, as regards post in which the writ petitioner/appellant claimed to be regularised.
The Court had also noticed absence of any scheme in this regard. Thus, the Hon’ble Single Bench was of the opinion that the prayers in the writ petition could not be entertained. It further directed that in the event of any scheme being framed for recruitment afresh or regularisation in permanent post of drivers and conductors, the appellant’s case would be taken into consideration by the respondent Corporation. The appellant, being aggrieved with the observation and finding of the Hon’ble Single Judge has preferred the instant appeal.
3. Bef
Sate of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Kamal Prasad & Ors. reported in (2014) 7 SCC 223 ;
Official Liquidator v. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943
Rameshwar Dayal v. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. (2010) 11 SCC 733
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753
State of Karnataka v. Ganapathi Chaya Nayak (2010) 3 SCC 115 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 804
Satya Prakash v. State of Bihar (2010) 4 SCC 179 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 353
Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal (2010) 2 SCC 422 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 385
Union of India & Ors vs. All India Trade Union Congress & Ors.
Temporary or casual employment does not confer legal rights to regularization; adherence to proper recruitment processes is mandatory for permanent appointments.
Employees who have worked for a considerable period of time cannot be denied regularisation, as it would violate their fundamental rights under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The court emphasizes that regularization of temporary employees must adhere to principles of equality and fairness, ensuring parity in treatment for similarly situated employees.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.