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

2002 Supreme(All) 1053

A.K.YOG
SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Abhinav Upadhyay, N.L.Pandey

A. K. YOG, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER, Sunil Kumar Sharma, claims regularisation on the basis of his work for the following periods (as per his date and event chart along with the writ petition) admittedly, having been engaged as daily, wager in the department of Registration Government of U. P. : petitioner was appointed for the period from 11. 4. 1984 to 31. 12. 1984 (8-1/2 months)Gap 3 weekspetitioner was appointed for the period from23. 1,1985 to 31. 1. 1985 [10 days)Gap 9-1/2 monthspetitioner was appointed for the period from16. 4. 1985 to 30. 6. 1985 (2-1/2 months)Gap 12 months petitioner was appointed for the period from8. 2. 1986 to 3. 5. 1986 (2 months 27 days)The aforesaid statistics shows that petitioner had worked, in total for 15 months (ignoring short breaks, i. e. gap of less than 3 months ).

( 2 ) THE learned standing counsel, however, giving his own calculation about the work of the petitioner and according to it, the petitioner had worked for 511 days (i. e. less than two years ). Petitioner does not dispute that he had not worked continuously for three years on or before october, 1986 for being eligible to be regularised under the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc





















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