JAI SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2006-8-49
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on August 18,2006

JAI SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

SUNISH AGGARWAL VS. STATE OF H.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2016-10-62] [REFERRED TO]
SUNITA RANI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2010-9-784] [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MAHAVEER C SINGHVI [LAWS(SC)-2010-7-4] [REFERRED TO]
DR. MEENAKSHI VS. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-767] [REFERRED TO]
TASNEEM FATMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2008-12-344] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-12-188] [REFERRED TO]
DIWAKAR SHUKLA VS. CHIEF ENGINEER & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-756] [REFERRED TO]
NILAMBARI DINKAR PAWAR VS. SHIKSHAN PRASARAK SANSTHA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-3-164] [REFERRED TO]
K S RAGHAVAN VS. DIRECTOR OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS [LAWS(KAR)-2010-6-49] [REFERRED TO]
RUKKESH DODDAMANI VS. COMMISSIONER, RURAL DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT [LAWS(KAR)-2022-8-95] [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAHANADI COALFIELDS LIMITED VS. RABINDRANATH CHOUBEY [LAWS(SC)-2020-5-22] [REFERRED TO]
AMRATBHAI SHAMALBHAI PATEL VS. BANK OF BARODA [LAWS(GJH)-2022-3-1076] [REFERRED TO]
PARAS NATH PANDEY VS. DIRECTOR NORTH CENTRAL ZONE CULTURAL CENTRE NYAYA MARG ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2008-12-158] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.)These appeals involve identical questions and, therefore, are disposed of by this common judgment. Writ Petitions filed by the Appellants were dismissed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court holding that termination of their services suffered from no infirmity.
(2.)Civil Appeal No. 510 of 2006 relates to Writ Petition No. 4794 of 1995 while other appeals relate to other writ petitions which were disposed of following the view expressed in the common judgment.
(3.)Factual background in a nutshell is as follows: The appellants were recruited by the respondent No. 3 as "Daily Wage Constables" and they were posted in an auxiliary battalion namely 124 Auxiliary Battalion. While the appellants were thus serving on ad hoc basis, a decision was taken by the respondents to disband the said Battalion and to install a permanent battalion in its place. At that stage the appellants along with others went on a general strike in Moradabad. Subsequently, they withdrew their strike. Cases of all the Daily Wage Constables including that of the appellants was considered for their regularization and for placing them in a permanent Battalion. The services of the appellants were, however, terminated and similar certificates of service were issued to all the appellants. As against Clause No.10 of the said certificate of service giving reason for termination, it was stated that since the services were no longer required due to disbandment of the unit, the services of the appellants were being terminated. Clause No.12 of the said certificate speaks of the conduct as against which three heads were provide as good, satisfactory and unsatisfactory. The appellants conduct had been shown in the said column as "unsatisfactory".


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.