REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

STATE OF U P Appellant

V/S

Anand Kumar Saxena Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

R.N. NANJUNDAPPA V. T. THIMMAIAH AND ANR [REFERRED TO]
G VEERAPPA PILLAI PROPRIETOR SATHI VILASBUS SERVICE PORAYAR TANJORE DISTRICT MADRAS VS. RAMAN AND RAMAN LTD [REFERRED TO]
RAJVI AMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MYSORE VS. S V NARAYANAPPA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. P K ROY [REFERRED TO]
M D SHUKLA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD SAGIRUDDIN VS. DISTT MECHANICAL ENGINEER NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAYS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. BALBIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
B N NAGARAJAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
SUSHMA SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
INDER PAL YADAV VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
USHA RANI DATTA AAYA ATTENDANT VS. STATE INDUSTRIAL COURT INDORE [REFERRED TO]
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. ASHA RAMCHHANDRA AMBEKAR MRS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. SURESH KUMAR VERMA [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED VS. P SAMBASIVA RAO:S PRASADA RAO [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA VS. HANICHAL ROY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. DHARAM BIR [REFERRED TO]
CHANCHAL GOYAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. TILAK RAJ [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA TOURISM CORPORATION LIMITED VS. FAKIR CHAND [REFERRED TO]
SULTAN SADIK VS. SANJAY RAJ SUBHA [REFERRED TO]
A UMARANI VS. REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Special Appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 3 -5 -1999 wherein the following direction has been issued: â€œThe authorities are directed to absorb and appoint the petitioners as Clerk on regular basis against any existing substantive vacancy or vacancies which may occur in near future. The appointment against the existing vacancies shall be made within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment before the appropriate authority.â€

(2.) THE operation of the aforesaid judgment and order was stayed by the Division Bench vide order dated 23 -12 -1999.

(3.) ON the contrary, it is submitted by Mr. Mishra that the respondent -employee had been working as seasonal employee for a long period, thus the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the appellants -authorities to absorb them. Thus, no interference is called and appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Click here to view full judgment.

STATE OF U P Vs. ANAND KUMAR SAXENA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address