Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION versus HARLEEN KAUR & ORS.

Decided
22 November 2019
Judges listed
D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HRISHIKESH ROY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2019] 18 S.C.R. 896 · 2019 INSC 1275
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Delay condoned.

p. 896, margin F

2

Leave granted.

p. 896, margin F

3

The High Court has furnished cogent reasons for declining to interfere with the order of the Tribunal directing the appellant to consider the cases of the respondents for regularization as Entomologists.

p. 896, margin F

4

The respondents were appointed after public advertisement and were selected on the basis of interviews. They have been working since 1997-8. Though the appointment was contractual for a period of six months, it has been extended. Subsequently, on 14 July 2008, posts were created by conversion of the existing posts of AMO, DMO, Entomologist and Asst. Entomologist. The Tribunal noted that the respondents are working against seven posts of Entomologists out of twelve sanctioned posts. The respondents were engaged with a view to counter the outbreak of dengue, a situation which continues to cause concern even at the present time. The Tribunal has duly considered the decision in State of Karnataka v Umadevi .

pp. 896–897, margin G

5

We are not inclined to entertain this appeal insofar as the grant of regularization is concerned.

p. 897, margin B

6

However, insofar as consequential monetary benefits are concerned, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the Municipal Corporation should not be saddled with the obligation of granting monetary benefits from 2008 as awarded by the High Court. On this aspect, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has fairly left it to the discretion of this Court.

p. 897, margin C

7

We, accordingly, order and direct that the grant of monetary benefits shall be with effect from the date of the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal i.e. with effect from 1 October 2015. However, we clarify that the respondents would be entitled to notional pay fixation and continuity of service.

p. 897, margin D

8

Subject to the aforesaid modification, the appeal is disposed of. Compliance shall be effected within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

p. 897, margin E