9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 1076X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stablish any legal right to the effect that their appointment was in accordance with law, the learned tribunal has rightly rejected the application of the petitioners in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karanataka others Vs. Uma Devi (supra).[ 2006 (4) TMI 456 - SUPREME COURT] which provided that the employees who had rendered services continuously for ten years without the cover of the court's order be regularized as the onetime measure. Petition dismissed. - S.K. GANGELE AND (ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE For the Appellant : Shri Ajay Bhargava, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Akhil Sinha, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 4. ORDER 1. Heard finally with the consent of the counsel for the parties. 2. Instant pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 006) 4 SCC 1, it was held that the petitioners were not eligible to get any benefit. Similar point has been considered by the Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No.22083/2012 (Laxmi Prasad Dubey others Vs. Union of India others) vide order dated 11/2/2013 in which the Division Bench has taken a view as under:- 11.2.2013 Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri S.A. Dharmadhikari and Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the respondents. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 26.9.2012, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, whereby it has dismissed the petitioners' Original Application No.746/2011. The petitioners' claim themselves to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent and payments are being made to them in individual capacity as per the Government's guidelines regarding payment of wages to the casual workers, the instant Original Application is premature and the same is accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. The petitioners despite opportunities have not filed their appointment orders. The respondents have stated that no appointment orders have been issued to the petitioners. The nature of relationship of the petitioners with the respondents, particularly regarding terms and conditions of their service, is therefore not clear. Apparently, the petitioners have no right to stop the respondents from outsourcing their certain services in the interest of economy and efficienc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
