Search Results for "regularisation"

634 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 634 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitions of 339 Temporary Employees Seeking Regularisation. Appointments made without following recruitment rules do not confer right to permanency.

This batch of writ petitions was filed by 339 petitioners challenging a common judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Gunthewari Regularization Dispute. Civil Court Jurisdiction Barred Under Section 18 of Maharashtra Gunthewari Development Act, 2001 for Challenging Regularization Order Under Section 3 of the Act.

The appellants, original plaintiffs, filed Regular Civil Suit No.185 of 2015 challenging an order of regularization dated 12.12.2006 passed under Sect...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Upholds Appeal by Town Panchayat, Sets Aside Single Judge Order Granting Retrospective Regularization to Sanitary Worker; Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 Held Inapplicable to Employees Governed by Special Service Rules

The case involved a sanitary worker engaged on daily wage basis in the Ulundurpet Special Grade Town Panchayat from 1 January 1992. He approached the ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Seeking Regularisation of Temporary Teacher's Service. Petitioner failed to establish continuous service of 240 days in a year as required under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for regularisation.

The petitioner, Prasannalaxmi Rambhau Pottala, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to consider her case for regularisat...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Petition of Ad-hoc Employee Seeking Regularisation — Appointment Not Through Proper Selection Process. Petitioner Appointed on Ad-hoc Basis as Showroom Assistant in 1997 Cannot Claim Regularisation as a Matter of Right.

The petitioner, Smt. D. Uma, was appointed on an ad-hoc basis on 10.03.1997 as a Showroom Assistant in the Office of the Regional Design and Technical...