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

2004 Supreme(MP) 124

S.S.JHA, A.K.GOHIL
State of M. P. – Appellant
Versus
Bhajanlal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.UPADHYA, J.D.Suryavanshi,

Judgment

( 1. ) HEARD.

( 2. ) ONLY question involved in the case is whether respondents are entitled to continue upto the age of 62 years in service.

( 3. ) ALL the respondents are Gangmen, who are engaged in the Workcharged establishment. Their condition of service is governed by M. P. P. W. D. Workcharged and Contingency. Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1976. These rules are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Counting of period of service is defined in Rule 4 of the Rules, wherein it is provided that any persons, who on 1st January, 1974 had completed atleast one years service as Workcharged employees or contingency paid employees and who on that date were holding the posts specified in the schedule and who on that date had not completed the age of superannuation prescribed for employees holding comparable class of posts in the regular employment of the State Government. The respondents were regularised under the provisions of the aforesaid rules. Therefore, the rule specifically provides that their age of superannuation shall be that of equivalent post of regular employees of the State Govt. The Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employ


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