Back
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, K. KUMARESH BABU
R. Iyyappan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi – Respondent
ORDER :
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the 4th respondent relating to the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent dated 20.12.2018 passed in O.A. No. 326 of 2015 upholding the validity of the scheme, titled as “Gang Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types of Work) Scheme” of Department of Space, Government of India, 2012” dated 03.09.2012 impugned in the O.A. No. 326 of 2015 and quash the said order of the Hon'ble Tribunal as well as the said scheme and consequently to direct the first respondent to create adequate no. of posts retrospectively from the date of the initial appointments of the petitioners with time scale of pay on par with Group-D post, now upgraded to Group-C posts, and to regularize the services of the petitioners by appointing them retrospectively in the said posts from the date of their initial employment with all consequential monetary and service benefits, including arrears and pensionary benefits therefor and further to award appropriate compensation for exploiting the petitioners all these years.
1. This Writ Petition has been filed, c
The court established that daily wage employees do not have a fundamental right to regularization, and compliance with recruitment norms is essential for such claims.
The Umadevi principle governs regularization of irregularly appointed employees, and any direction for regularization must be in line with this principle.
The court emphasizes that regularization of temporary employees must adhere to principles of equality and fairness, ensuring parity in treatment for similarly situated employees.
The High Court directed the regularization of long-serving employees based on the principles established in Umadevi's case, emphasizing the need for lawful government discretion in employment matters....
Employees who have worked for a considerable period of time cannot be denied regularisation, as it would violate their fundamental rights under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The Tribunal upheld that policy decisions regarding cut-off dates for regularization are valid unless arbitrary or discriminatory, reaffirming that earlier court rulings must guide eligibility for re....
The court ruled that employees employed for lengthy periods cannot be denied regularization of service, emphasizing principles of fairness and equality under the Constitution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for regularization, an employee must prove the legality of their initial appointment and cannot claim permanency based on 'legitimate expectat....
Regularization of service requires sanctioned vacancies, and proposals do not confer enforceable rights. Voluntary waivers significantly impact employee claims and equitable principles cannot overrid....
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
