G. S. SANDHAWALIA, VIKAS SURI
State of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Balwinder Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - Present judgment shall dispose of 30 cases i.e. LPA Nos.688, 540 & 573 of 2021, LPA Nos.740, 739, 751, 802, 479, 918, 916, 818, 302, 541, 532 & 585 of 2020, LPA Nos.8, 9, 18, 45, 55, 152, 818, 560, 567 and 106 of 2021, LPA Nos.171 & 148 of 2022 and LPA No.536 of 2016 and LPA Nos.444 & 508 of 2020.
2. The State's endeavour to deny regularization to Class-IV employees of Category-D, who have served them for almost 4 decades and still continue to serve them, befuddle them thus burdening this Court with repeated rounds of litigation.
3. Firstly, policies of regularization framed by the State itself, on which action is taken selectively leading to a clamour for equality on account of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India has led to the present round of litigation, wherein various Single Bench Judges of this Court while noticing the dereliction of the duties at the level of State had directed regularization. The State continues to deny to these lowly placed employees their place of equality with regard to the benefit of regularization and s
Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Mukta Jeevandasswasi Suvarna Jaya vs. V.R. Rudani and others
D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India
Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra
Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and others
Olga Tellis & others vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation & others
Raj Kumar vs. State of Haryana
Sanjana M. Wig vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others
Sheo Narain Nagar and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others
State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh
State of Jharkhand and others vs. Kamal Prasad and others
State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi and others
State of Karnataka vs. M.L.Kesari & others
The Managing Director, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer and another vs. Chiggan Lal and others
Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of Haryana and others 2018 (3) SCT 181
Regularization of services for employees who have served for over ten years is a right that must be considered by the state, provided there are no valid objections, and the state must adhere to its o....
The court emphasized fair treatment and equal pay, mandating regularization of long-serving employees who were arbitrarily excluded from benefits, thereby reinforcing principles of equality under Art....
Appointments not being sponsored by the employment exchange, as prescribed under Rule 149(2) of the Rules, would only make the appointments irregular and not illegal.
Completion of ten years of service gives a right to regularization, which cannot be negated by subsequent policy changes unless misconduct is proven.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.