https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260333 Existing casual employees could not be removed merely to replace them with workers engaged through outsourcing under Rule 178, because the power to outsource and reduce expenditure did not justify arbitrary displacement of persons already in service. The Court held that outsourcing is only an administrative mode of engagement and does not create a right to substitute serving casual labourers as a matter of course. The writ petitions therefore failed, and the restraint against removal of the existing casual workers was maintained. en-us Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Jun 2015 07:28:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260333 Existing casual employees could not be removed merely to replace them with workers engaged through outsourcing under Rule 178, because the power to outsource and reduce expenditure did not justify arbitrary displacement of persons already in service. The Court held that outsourcing is only an administrative mode of engagement and does not create a right to substitute serving casual labourers as a matter of course. The writ petitions therefore failed, and the restraint against removal of the existing casual workers was maintained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260333