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

2002 Supreme(Guj) 184

K.A.PUJ
BALUBHAI G. MAKWANA – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: J.J.YAGNIK, NITA PANCHAL, SUDHIR MEHTA

K. A. PUJ, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, in this petition, has sought the mandatory relief from this Court directing the respondent authorities to treat the impugned action on the part of the respondents in not regularising the services of the petitioner and in terminating the services of the petitioner by adopting the modus operandi of 29 days appointment, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional and non-est in the eye of law and has further sought directions to the respondents to treat the petitioner in continuous services of the respondents right from the initial entry of the petitioner in the service of the respondents. The petitioner has further prayed for a declaration from this Court to the effect that the orders creating artificial break in the service of the petitioner, after his initial appointment, as illegal, non-est and of no effect whatsoever and to treat the services of the petitioner as continuous for all purposes. Lastly, the petitioner has prayed for directions to the respondents to confer upon the petitioner all benefit of regular service from his initial entry in the service of the respondents, such as fixation of pay, arrears of salary, status,

















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