TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Government Resolution dated 17 October 1988 applied to daily wage workers of the Forest and Environment Department doing work other than building maintenance and repairing work. (ii) Whether such workers who had completed more than five years of service were entitled to the benefits under the scheme, including consideration for permanent or quasi-permanent status.
Issue (i): Whether the Government Resolution dated 17 October 1988 applied to daily wage workers of the Forest and Environment Department doing work other than building maintenance and repairing work.
Analysis: The Resolution was framed on the basis of committee recommendations relating to daily wage workers across different departments of the State. The scheme was not confined to workers engaged only in building maintenance and repairing work. The classification adopted in the later departmental resolution and the contrary view taken in the Full Bench decision were held inconsistent with the object and scope of the original Resolution.
Conclusion: The Resolution dated 17 October 1988 applied to daily wage workers of the Forest and Environment Department, including those performing work other than building maintenance and repairing work.
Issue (ii): Whether such workers who had completed more than five years of service were entitled to the benefits under the scheme, including consideration for permanent or quasi-permanent status.
Analysis: The earlier final judgment between the parties had directed fresh consideration of individual cases for regularization or quasi-permanent status. The Court held that the workers were entitled at least to the benefits expressly provided in the scheme according to length of service, and that the State was bound to extend those benefits to eligible workers who had completed more than five years of service.
Conclusion: The eligible daily wage workers were entitled to the scheme benefits linked to length of service, and the State was directed to grant such benefits and consider consequential service benefits from the relevant date.
Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was modified, and the appeals were disposed of by directing extension of the Resolution dated 17 October 1988 to eligible Forest and Environment Department daily wage workers with service of more than five years.
TaxTMI 
