AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 195 wordsRajendra Menon, J.—Shri Anoop Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
Smt. Seema Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for the State.
Petitioner is working in the Respondents'' establishment as a daily wages Mate and claims regularization in service on the ground that he has completed more than 10 years of service. He is working regularly since 1984 and is entitled to regularization in the light of principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi 2006 (109) FLR 826 : 2006 (2) CLR 261 (SC) and the policies formulated by the State Government on 16.5.2007 and further on 6.9.2008, claiming regularization, Petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Keeping in view the aforesaid contentions advanced by learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Respondents are directed to examine case of the Petitioner for regularization in accordance to policies and circulars of the State Government and pass appropriate orders in the matter of regularization of the Petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
The petition stands allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid. Certified copy as per rules.