TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Contractual Employment: Limits on Regularization based on Length of Service</h1> <h3>Director, Institute Of Management Development U.P Versus Smt. Pushpa Srivastava</h3> Director, Institute Of Management Development U.P Versus Smt. Pushpa Srivastava - 1992 AIR 2070, 1992 SCR (3) 712, 1992 SCC (4) 33, JT 1992 (4) 489, 1992 ... Issues involved: The issues involved in this case include the regularisation of service, authority to abolish posts, contractual appointments, and the right to regularisation after a certain period of service.Regularisation of Service: The respondent was appointed on various ad hoc bases, with the last appointment being on a contractual basis for six months. Despite the acceptance of her resignation, she requested to continue her services. The High Court directed her reinstatement and regularisation within three months. The Supreme Court, however, held that the respondent had no right to continue beyond the contractual period, and her services could not be regularised based on the length of service alone.Authority to Abolish Posts: The main contention revolved around whether the Director or the Board had the authority to abolish the post held by the respondent. The appellant argued that the Director had the power under Rule 16(viii) to create technical posts, while the respondent contended that Rule 11, conferring powers on the Board for creating research posts, applied. The Court decided to focus on the terms of appointment rather than delving into the authority to abolish posts.Contractual Appointments: The order dated 1.9.90 clearly stated the terms of the respondent's appointment, including a fixed pay for six months on a contractual basis. The appointment was ad hoc and terminable without notice. The Court emphasized that once the contractual period ended, the right to remain in the post ceased, and there was no basis for regularisation based on the nature of the appointment.Right to Regularisation: The respondent sought regularisation based on the length of service and cited a previous case for support. However, the Court distinguished the present case from the cited case, emphasizing that the absence of a rule for regularisation in the current scenario meant that the services could not be regularised based solely on the length of service. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the continuation of services until the end of the calendar year, leaving open the possibility of regularisation at the appellant's discretion.
TaxTMI 