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

2004 Supreme(MP) 36

RAJENDRA MENON
RADHA MOHAN GOSWAMI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
CHITRA SAXENA, Deepak Shrivastava, MPS.Raghuwanshi, R.A.RAMAN, R.D.Jain, S.K.JAIN

RAJENDRA MENON, J.

( 1 ) AS common questions are involved in all these cases and facts are also identical, they are being disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS in all these petitions are working in the water resources department. Initially, they were appointed on daily wage basis in the post of copyist, typist, referencer and have been continuously working from various dates prior to december 31, 1988.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that some of them are working since 1982 and 1983, were agitating their claim for being regularised in service before various fora. Some of the employees had filed applications before the labour court claiming their classification as permanent employees and certain other employees had taken action for filing applications before the state administrative tribunal claiming regularisation in service. When such proceedings were pending in the case of some of the employees, state government issued circulars on december 31, 1999 and clarified the same by another circular dated february 14, 2000 wherein certain procedure was laid down for discontinuing services of the daily wage employees. It was also emphasised in these circulars that be



















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