REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

THOMAS CHANDY Appellant

V/S

RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MALLOCH VS. ABERDDEN CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
SAYED MANSOOR ALI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
E. RAMAKRISHNAN & ORS. VS. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. PYARE SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BHANWAR LAL MALWAR VS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
R.S.RAWAT VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. RAGUVENDRA SHESHGIR RAO KULKARNI [REFERRED TO]
PARSHOTAM LAL DHINGRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
H H MAHARAJADHIRAJA MADHAV RAO JIVAJI RAO SGINDIA BAHADUR OF GWALIOR H H MAHARAJADHIRAJA MAHARANA SHRI BHAGWAT SINGHJI BAHADUR OF UDAIPUR COL H H BRARBANS SARAMAUR RAJA I RAJAGAN SIR PRATAP SINGH MALVENDRA BAHADUR COL RAJA SURINDER SINGH BAHADUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAJPUT RUDA MEHA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. M.J. SIDDIQUI [REFERRED TO]
BALESHWAR DASS ARHANT PRASAD JAIN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
AMAR NATH OM PRAKASH FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK GULATI VS. B S JAINAND [REFERRED TO]
P D AGGARWAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
A K JAIN M A HAQUE P K SHROFF VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA KUMAR MISRA VS. U P STATE HANDLOOM CORPN LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
JACOB M PUTHUPARAMBIL JACOB M PUTHUPARAMBIL P MOHANAN SASIDHARAN C P C A JOSE MARY C L NAZAR K M P V SASIKUMAR PARASSALA SIVANANDAN M S SREEKUMAR VS. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY:KERALA WATER AUTHORITY:KERALA WATER AUTHORITY:STATE OF KERALA:STATE OF KERALA:STATE OF KERALA:KERALA WATER AUTHORITY:KERALA WATER AUTHORITY:KER [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. KAUSHAL KISHORE SHUKLA [REFERRED TO]
TRIVENI SHANKAR SAXENA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SURINDERKUMAR [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SUN ENGINEERING WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
SARVA SHRAMIK SANGH BOMBAY VS. INDIAN HUME PIPE COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
J AND K PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. NARINDER MOHAN [REFERRED TO]
RAVI S NAIK SANJAY BANDEKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRATRIPATHI VS. U P PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL IV [REFERRED TO]
MADHYA PRADESH HASTA SHILPA VIKASNIGAM LIMITED VS. DEVENDRAKUMAR JAIN [REFERRED TO]
NAND KISHORE VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
KHAGESH KUMAR VS. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. U P MADHYAMIK SHIKSHA PARISHAD SHRAMIK SANGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. ASHWANI KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH ADMN VS. MANAGING SOCIETY GOSWAMI GDSDC [REFERRED TO]
A MAHUDESWARAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION U P VS. AVDESH KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
PRABHAT KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
AVINASH NAGRA VS. NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITI [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. BISHAMBER DUTT [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KISHORE VISHWAKARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MITTAL ENGINEERING WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE MEERUT [REFERRED TO]
ASHWANI KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. SK KALEEM SK GULAM NABI [REFERRED TO]
PATNA UNIVERSITY VS. DRAMITATIWARI MRS [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. SANTRO DEVI [REFERRED TO]
RADHA RAIZADA VS. COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT VIDYAWATI DARBARI GIRLS INTER COLLEGE AND [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed for issuing a direction to the respondents to treat petitioner as having been appointed in substantive capacity with effect from 16.5.83 or in the alternative to consider him for regularisation w.e.f. 16.5.83 and give him seniority and other consequential benefits accordingly.

(2.) THE factual gamut reveals that petitioner started working with the respondent Corporation as a Typist on daily wages from 1980. On 14.5.83, a test of Typists was held and his name appeared in the Select List and in pursuance of that he was issued appointment letter 16.5.83 (Annexure 4) which reads as under :- "THE following persons working on stipendary basis in the Corpora- tion are hereby appointed on the post of Typist in the pay scale.......with usual allowances on temporary basis till further orders. THE services of these persons will be governed by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulation, 1958 and annual grade increments to these persons would be available only after qualifying in Stenography or passing a Graduate Examination....... (1) Shri Thomas Chandy, (2) Shri Sant Kumar Sharma, (3) Shri Rakesh Kumar."

(3.) IN a case like the instant the Court has to be satisfied as what is the legally justiciable right of the petitioner which has been infringed and for which the petitioner can resort to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia. The Supreme Court in Purshotam Lal Dingra vs. Union of INdia (2), has held that "A person can be said to acquire a lien on a post only when he has been confirmed and made permanent on that post and not earlier" and further held that "a Government servant holding a post temporarily does not have any right to hold the said post." IN R.K. Mishra vs. U.P. State Handloom Corporation (3), the Apex Court has taken the same view.

Click here to view full judgment.

THOMAS CHANDY Vs. RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address