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

2024 Supreme(P&H) 226

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Shyam Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. R.S. Randhawa, Mr. Aditya Partap, Mr. Pankaj Middha AAG, Haryana

Judgment

Mr. Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.

In the present petition, grievance of the petitioner is that the claim of the petitioner for the grant of benefit of regularization of his services has been declined by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner was not recruited through Employment Exchange and regularization policy dated 01.10.2003 (Annexure P-13) will not be applicable upon the department of Panchayat Simiti.

2. Certain facts need to be noticed for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Peon with the respondentdepartment in the year 1995. While working on the said post his services were terminated on 15.04.1997. Said termination of the services of the petitioner was challenged by the petitioner before the Labour Court and vide award dated 04.02.2000 passed by the Labour Court, petitioner was reinstated in service with continuity along with 20% back wages.

4. Feeling dissatisfied on account of grant of only 20% back wages, the petitioner filed writ petition being CWP-12845-2000 and this Court vide order dated 19.04.2001 modified the grant of 20% back wages to that of 100% back wages. Against the said decision, the respondents fi

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