2024 (4) TMI 600

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....O.A. No.964 of 2011, whereby the claim for regularization of petitioners who had served as casual/daily wage workers for a period of more than 10 years on the date of decision in Uma Devi's case (Civil Appeal Nos.3595-3612 of 1999) i.e. 10.04.2006 has been rejected. 2. Reason for Tribunal's disinclination to grant relief was that no material could be brought on record to establish that appointment of petitioners was not illegal but merely irregular. 3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioners brought to the attention of this Court the decision in the case of Ravi Verma and Anr. Vs. Union of India rendered by Apex Court on 13.03.2018. Pertinently the said decision in Ravi Verma arose out of rejection of OA No....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments, and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T are set aside. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent." 6. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that similar treatment is liable to be afforded to the petitioners as has been extended to Ravi Verma & Ors. 7. During the course of argument, learned counsel for employer Shri Gopi Chourasia has emphasized that the petitioners herein were not granted any temporary status under the relevant scheme and thus their case is distinguishable to the case of Ravi Verma & Ors.. The said contention of learned counsel for employer does not appear to be correct. Averments made in this petition and also the contents of order of the Apex Court reveal that even in Ravi Verma and Ors. had merely been recommended for grant of tem....