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

2005 Supreme(HP) 396

S.S.NEGI, M.R.VERMA
SAVITRI CHAUHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF H. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Sh. D.P. Gupta Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Abhilasha Kumar, Addl. Advocate general for the respondent.

JUDGEMENT

M.R. Verma, Justice (Retd.) Chairman. In this original application the appellant has inter alia claimed the following reliefs: "(1) That the respondents may be directed to regularize the applicant as a Clerk who effect from 1.4.1982 and alternatively with effect from 8.5.1985 with all consequential benefits. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to give to the applicant the arrears of salary due and permissible to her on account of relief at (1) above"

2. The case of the applicant as made out in the original application is that she possessed the requisite qualification and was given employment as a daily waged Clerk w. e. f. 1.4.1982 when the joined her duties as such. The employment of the applicant was extended from time to time and her experience certificate as having worked as a Clerk w. e. f. 1.4.1982 to 12.5.1985 is Annexure A-8. She bonafide believes that her case was recommended for regularisation but vide order dated May 8, 1985 (wrongly mentioned as 1995 in sub para 3 of para 6 of the original application) Annexure A-9 her services were ordered to be regularised as a Peon. She objected such appointment but on assurance by the S.D.O.(Civil) she accepted the app












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