Regularization of labourers appointed on compassionate grounds - their lordships held that they cannot be termed as contract labourers, more particularly when they had their initial appointment under a scheme of compassionate appointment.In the result, the present writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondent company to regularise the services of the petitioners under the category of compassionate appointment, with all attendant benefits of service by taking into account the other parameters as to their suitability. It can be seen from the record that already the petitioners are in their fifties and have not been left with much service. As such, the process of regularisation may be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs - 2015 Telangana & A.P. (2014)MSK lawreports



appointed on compassionate grounds during the  
year 1985-86, that since the date of their initial appointment,
they have been working continuously in their respective posts
discharging their duties, that their nature of work is similar
to that of the regular employees, and that though they have
completed more than 21 years of service as on the date of
filing of the writ petition, their services have not been
regularised. they cannot be termed as contract labourers,
more particularly when they had their initial appointment
under a scheme of compassionate appointment.
  In the result, the present writ petition is allowed with a
direction to the respondent company to regularise the
services of the petitioners under the category of
compassionate appointment, with all attendant benefits of
service by taking into account the other parameters as to
their suitability. It can be seen from the record that already
the petitioners are in their fifties and have not been left with
much service. As such, the process of regularisation may be
completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.  No order as to costs. - 2015 Telangana & A.P. (2014)MSK lawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS