Back
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Putul Basfore – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.
1. Heard Mr. P. K. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Deuri, learned Government Advocate; and Mr. A. Chaliha, learned standing counsel, Finance Department, Government of Assam, appearing on behalf of their respective respondents.
2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition, has raised a grievance with regard to the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in taking up her case for regularization of her services in view of the continuous services being rendered by her under the Project Engineer, Guwahati Planetarium, Science Technology and Environment Department, Government of Assam.
3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner in the year 1993, was engaged for doing Grade-IV works on Muster Roll basis under the respondent No. 7. The petitioner was initially being paid her remuneration on daily wage basis. The petitioner contends that given the necessity with regard to maintaining cleanliness in the said Planetarium, the respondent No. 7 had vide communication, dated 23.05.1994, required the Government for consideration of the case of the petitioner and other persons engaged on Muster
Muster Roll workers are not entitled to regularization but are eligible for minimum pay and welfare benefits as per state policy.
High Courts cannot grant regularization of temporary employees unless they were appointed through a lawful selection process in accordance with constitutional norms.
Eligibility for service regularization requires completion of specified continuous service duration, as established by prior court rulings.
Casual workers may be entitled to minimum wages if engaged for significant periods but cannot claim automatic regularization merely based on similar duties to regular employees.
Temporary employees performing duties similar to regular employees are entitled to minimum wage parity, but cannot claim regularization unless their initial appointment complies with legal recruitmen....
Court reaffirmed that failure to regularize an eligible employee's service constitutes a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.
Employees engaged in perennial positions for over five years must be considered for regularization, adhering to precedents on service entitlements.
Pre-regularization service - claim of the employee should have been considered immediately if not through pre-regularization services and get counted for the purpose of terminal benefits
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
