Back
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Lalit Gehlot – Appellant
Versus
Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners worked in various capacities. (Para 3) |
| 2. petitioners argue entitlement to benefits. (Para 4 , 5 , 10) |
| 3. university acknowledges similarity in cases. (Para 8 , 19) |
| 4. court recognizes petitioners' right to relief. (Para 17 , 21) |
| 5. court cites supreme court ruling on regularization. (Para 22 , 23 , 25) |
| 6. writ petitions allowed; regularization ordered. (Para 27) |
JUDGMENT :
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.:— Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present batch of writ petitions are based on identical facts and involving common point of law, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common order.
3. Brief facts which are required to be noted for deciding the controversy are that the petitioners were appointed on different posts viz. Chowkidar/Peon, Book Attendant, LDC, Library Assistant, Junior Accountant, Accountant, Helper, Staff Nurse, Sweeper, Rakshak, Lab Bearer, Lab Attendant, Book Lifter, Security Guard, Matron, Driver/Peon, LDC cum Computer Operator in the respondent- Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur on different dates through the placement agency/casual basis/daily wage basis. Some of the petitioners have served the respondent No. 1 in their r
Since the similarly situated persons have already been extended the benefit of regularization, the University should have taken up the cases of the respondents petitioners on its own and as a model e....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to regularization and equal pay for employees who have completed five years of continuous service, as per the Dhrubananda Mishra ju....
Long-term service of daily-wage employees justifies regularization without state approval, and previous benefits under welfare legislation do not prevent such regularization.
The right to pension is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away without due process, and similarly situated employees must be treated equally under the law.
Since there are no sanctioned posts on which any of these petitioners were appointed as irregular appointments, no such directions are warranted.
Regularization – While directing for regularisation in service Court must strike a balance between all parties.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Petitioners' service should have been regularized as they were engaged against sanctioned posts by following due process of selection and ....
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
