TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>SC Upholds Regularization for 34 Long-Serving Electric Supply Workers, Emphasizes Equality and Non-Arbitrariness.</h1> The appeal challenging the regularization of 34 daily wage employees from the Cooperative Electric Supply Society in the U.P. State Electricity Board was ... Regularization of daily wage employees of Cooperative Electric Supply Society in U.P. State Electricity Board (Electricity Board) - Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution - HELD THAT:- In the present case the writ petitioners (respondents herein) only wish that they should not be discriminated against vis-`-vis the original employees of the Electricity Board since they have been taken over by the Electricity Board in the same manner and position . Thus, the writ petitioners have to be deemed to have been appointed in the service of the Electricity Board from the date of their original appointments in the Society. Since they were all appointed in the society before 4.5.1990 they cannot be denied the benefit of the decision of the Electricity Board dated 28.11.1996 permitting regularization of the employees of the Electricity Board who were working from before 4.5.1990. To take a contrary view would violate Article 14 of the Constitution. We have to read Uma Devi s case (supra) in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution, and we cannot read it in a manner which will make it in conflict with Article 14. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any judgment, not even of the Supreme Court, can violate the Constitution. In the present case many of the writ petitioners have been working from 1985 i.e. they have put in about 22 years service and it will surely not be reasonable if their claim for regularization is denied even after such a long period of service. Hence apart from discrimination, Article 14 of the Constitution will also be violated on the ground of arbitrariness and unreasonableness if employees who have put in such a long service are denied the benefit of regularization and are made to face the same selection which fresh recruits have to face. Thus, we find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Issues involved: Regularization of daily wage employees of Cooperative Electric Supply Society in U.P. State Electricity Board, applicability of Board's decision dated 28.11.1996, discrimination between different sets of employees, interpretation of Article 14 of the Constitution.Judgment Summary:Regularization of Services: The appeal was filed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court affirming the regularization of 34 daily wage employees of the Cooperative Electric Supply Society in the U.P. State Electricity Board. The employees were absorbed in the service of the Board after the Society was taken over. The employees contended that they should be treated the same as original Board employees for regularization.Discrimination and Applicability of Board's Decision: The Single Judge and Division Bench held that there should be no discrimination between the original Board employees and those from the Society taken over by the Board. The employees from the Society, appointed before 4.5.1990, were entitled to the benefits of the Board's decision dated 28.11.1996 for regularization.Interpretation of Article 14: The Court agreed with the lower courts that the employees from the Society should be deemed as Board employees from their original appointments. Denying them regularization benefits would violate Article 14 of the Constitution, ensuring equality before the law. The Court emphasized that the Constitution is supreme, and judgments must align with its principles.Principles of Reasonableness and Non-Arbitrariness: Referring to previous judgments, the Court highlighted the importance of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness in government actions, as mandated by Article 14. Employees with long service periods should not be arbitrarily denied regularization, as it would violate their rights under the Constitution.Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed as the Court found no merit in challenging the regularization of the employees from the Cooperative Electric Supply Society in the U.P. State Electricity Board. The employees were entitled to the benefits of the Board's decision dated 28.11.1996, and any denial of regularization would be against the principles of equality and reasonableness under Article 14 of the Constitution.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
