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

2006 Supreme(Guj) 617

H.K.RATHOD
NIRUBEN ATMARAM SITAPURI – Appellant
Versus
SALES TAX COMMISSIONER – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: L.B.DABHI, N.S.SHETH

H. K. RATHOD, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocate, Mr. N. H. Sheth, appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned AGP, Mr. Dabhi, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2.

( 2 ) LOOKING to the facts which are on record, the petitioner was appointed on 12. 5. 1988 as a Sweeper and her term was extended from time to time. Since then, the petitioner has been working with the respondent department without there being any break in service till the date of termination i. e. 27. 3. 2006. The order of termination wherein the service of petitioner was terminated as part time Sweeper by respondent No. 1 herein.

( 3 ) LEARNED Advocate, Mr. Sheth, submitted that petitioner was continuously working with respondent more than 10 years, even though service of the petitioner was not regularized by respondent. He also submitted that looking to the Government Resolution dated 26. 12. 1980, the State Government has decided to consider the case of part time employees after a period of three years, to be regularized their services as a full time employees. He also submitted that this Resolution dated 26. 12. 1980 has been kept in abeyance by another Resolution dated 21. 8. 1995. However, the case of the








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