Back
SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Ram Rattan – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek regularization after long service. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. discrimination in regularization based on qualifications. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. state policy on regularization discussed. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. guidelines for regularization emphasized. (Para 13 , 14 , 18) |
| 5. court directs regularization of petitioners' services. (Para 15 , 19 , 33) |
| 6. rights of employees discussed in light of equality. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 7. state responsibility under public employment outlined. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 8. discrimination violates fundamental rights. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 9. importance of natural justice in employment cases. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 10. historical precedents for regularization recognized. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 11. compensation for prolonged litigation. (Para 34) |
| 12. conclusion and relief granted. (Para 35) |
Judgment
Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, J.
The petitioners have filed the present writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the Office Order dated 25.01.2019 (Annexure P-1) w
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
