R VS Lichniak - 25 Nov 02

Mandatory life sentence for murder has a denunciatory value, expressing society s view of a crime which has long been regarded with peculiar abhorrence.

India - Supreme Court

Hari Mohan Vyas VS Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board, Jaipur - 01 Jul 08

Work Charge Service Rules, 1964 – Grant of pay scale No. 6 – Petitioner was matriculate at the time of appointment – Appointed Munshi – Deserved to be granted pay scale No. 6 meant for matriculate persons – Granted pay Scale No. 3 meant for non-matriculate – Held – Petitioner is entitled to pay scale of Rs. 490-840 from the date of granting him semi permanent status after completion of 2 years service – Denial is unfounded and illegal – Directed to grant the benefits of revised pay scale Rules with consequential benefits within 3 months.Writ petition allowed. (Paras 7 to 10) dk;Z izHkkj lsok fu;e] 1964 & osru Ja`[kyk la- 6 iznku djuk & fu;qfDr ds le; izkFkhZ esfVªdqysV Fkk & eqakh fu;qDr gqvk & osru Ja`[kyk la- 6 ikus dk gdnkj Fkk tks esfVªdqysV O;fDr;ksa ds fy, Fkh & osru Ja`[kyk la- 3 iznku dh tks ukWu esfVªdqysV O;fDr;ksa ds fy, Fkh & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & izkFkhZ 2 o"kZ dh lsokiw.kZ djus ij mls v)Z LFkk;h...

India - Rajasthan

Sita Ram VS State of Rajasthan - 09 Aug 07

Service Matter – Work Charge Service Rules – Grant of benefit of semipermanent and permanent – Initially appointed on work charge basis in Jan. 1987 – Terminated services on 1-12-88 – Reinstated with wages from the date of award i.e. 5-1-95 – Reinstated in service on 26-11-98 – Held – No justification or explanation given as to why the petitioner was not given the benefit after completion of two and ten years of service, even after disposal of the writ petition – Entitled to be considered for declaration as semipermanent and permanent atlest treating the service from 5-1-95.(Para 3) Writ petition allowed. lsok ekeys & odZ pktZ lsok fu;e & v/kZ LFkkf;Ro ,oa LFkkf;Ro dk ykHk iznku djuk & vkjEHk esa tuojh 1987 esa odZ pktZ ds vk/kkj ij fu;qDr fd;k x;k & 1-12-88 dks lsok,a lekIr dh & ,okMZ dh frfFk vFkkZr~ 5-1-95 ls osru lfgr cgky fd;k & 26-11-98 dks lsok esa cgky fd;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & bl vkk; dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ;k Li"Vhdj.k ugha fn;k x;k fd nks o"k...

India - Rajasthan

Rajasthan Rajya Shikshit Karyaprabhari Karmchari Sanghthan VS State - 29 Jan 14

Rajasthan Work Charged Employees Service Rule, 1964, Rule 3(3) and 3(2) — Grant of status of semi permanent and permanent on the post of store Munshi — Initially appointed as Beldar/Chowkidar/Road Mistri/Godami on work charge basis — Possess requisite qualification of Secondary or higher educational qualification — Discharging their duties on the post of store Munshi since their initial appointment — Some of them similarly situated persons were given such benefits pursuant to the judgement of this Court — Held — Directed to declare the members of the petitioner-union semi permanent and so also permanent on completion of two years and ten years respectively on the post of store Munshi u/R. 3(3) and 3(2) of the Rules of 1964 with all consequential benefits within three months. (Paras 6 to 8)Writ petition allowed. jktLFkku dk;Z Hkkfjr deZpkjh lsok fu;e] 1964] fu;e 3¼3½ o 3¼2½ & LVksj eqa'kh ds in ij v)Z L...

India - Rajasthan

Narendra Kumar Chandwar VS State of Rajasthan (6) - 16 Jan 92

Rajasthan Work-Charge Employees Service Rules, 1964 — If one is appointed on a post, he is entitled for conferment of semi-permanent or permanent status — This will depend on his completion of required period — If work of higher post is taken — Entitled for minimum salary in the pay scale — Not entitled to semi-permanent or permanent status in higher scale. (Para 7)

India - Rajasthan

Girdhari Lal Baberwal VS State of Rajasthan - 01 Jul 08

Work-Charge Service Rules, 1964, Schedule, Entry 34 – Reversion – Petitioner was helper – Status changed to that of work charged Beldar for want of certificate of qualification – Held – All that required is that the candidate should be able to read and write Hindi and read and understand the numerical and metric measurements of English – If once the petitioner had been granted semi-permanent status by respondents themselves, it would have to be presumed that the status was conferred upon him because he was literate – Nothing contrary was brought on record – Not served with notice or afforded opportunity of hearing – He was possessing education of Secondary Board – Order being arbitrary and in violation of Arts. 14 and 16 quashed and set aside.(Paras 4 & 6) Writ petition allowed. dk;Z Hkkfjr lsok fu;e] 1964] vuqlwph] izfof"B 34 & inkoUufr & izkFkhZ gsYij Fkk & kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds izek.k i= ds vHkko esa mldh gSfl;r ,d dk;Z Hkkfjr csynkj ds :Ik es...

India - Rajasthan

Ratan Lal Verma VS State of Rajasthan - 12 Dec 96

Rajashtan Work Charge Employees Service Rules, 1964 – Rule 3 – The petitioner was appointed on work charge basis – He continued from 1-9-86 to 31-3-87 – And then the continued though there was no order for extention – There is no dispute about this service and he is entitled to its wages – He does not wish to press any other relief as he has been appointed on the post of his deceased father in that very office – Held – Arrears of pay be paid accordingly. (Paras 4 and 5)

India - Rajasthan

Touviu VS State of Nagaland - 19 Sep 14

Nagaland Work Charge and Casual Employees Regularization Act, 2001 – Employment and Service matter - Fixation of seniority - Pay scale - Regularization – Selection Process - Matter pertains to fixation of seniority of the petitioners numbering 9 vis-a-vis the private respondents numbering 5 - Petitioners are aggrieved by Annexure-F seniority list (tentative) by which reversing the earlier seniority positions they have been shown as junior to private respondents - Petitioners have referred to the earlier seniority lists of 2006, 2008 and 2010 in which they were all along shown senior to private respondents - Held, Position relating to issue raised in this writ petition can be looked into from another angle - When it is admitted fact that both categories of employees were appointed under same terms and conditions and without any selection, fact which learned counsel appearing for respondents including learned Addl. A.G. have fairly admitted, no distinction could have been made between sa...

India - Gauhati

Jarnail Singh VS State of Rajasthan - 10 Jul 08

Forest Department (Work Charge) Employees Standing Orders, 1973, Clause (3) – The validity of the permanent and the semi – permanent status of the petitioners. It was held that the petitioners will be considered for their semi and permanent appointment because they have completed 2 years and ten years in the service respectively. Writ petition was allowed.

India - Rajasthan

Muralisamy @ Muralidharan & Others VS State by Inspector of Police - 21 Dec 06

Acquittal from murder charge.

India - Madras