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

CENTRAL WELFARE BOARD AND ORS. versus MS. ANJALI BEPARI AND ORS.

Decided
2 August 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Case Partly allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 275 · 1996 INSC 818
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. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Mr. Bijan Kumar Ghosh, Advocate takes notice for respondent No. 1.

p. 275, margin G

It is not in dispute that the respondent came to be appointed against a casual vacancy in the Central Social Welfare Board Scheme. The respondent has been continuing ever since the date of appointment, namely, February 11, 1992. She filed writ petition in the Calcutta High Court for direction to regularise her services. The learned Single .I udge held in the judgment that that she was not entitled to regularisation as the mode of her appointment was not in accordance with the rules. In the impugned order dated January 24, 1996, the Division Bench in FMA T No. 16/95 reversed the order of the learned Single .Judge and directed regularisation of the services of the respondent as under :

pp. 275–276, margin G

"The appeal, therefore, succeeds. The judgment and order of the trial court is set aside. The writ application is allowed. The respondents are directed to regularise the service of the appellant in the post of Gram Sevika with effect from the date she completed three years of service in the concerned Project positively within two months from date and also to pay her arrears salaries and other

p. 276, margin B

·benefits, if any, within the aforesaid period."

p. 276, margin C

Calling this order in question, this SLP has been filed. It is not in di>pute that the project is being wound up in a phased manner and the services of the employees are being dispensed accordingly. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no junior to the respondent was allowed to continue in the said project. It is stated that there are other project being operated similarly, but the persons engaged therein also are continuing on temporary basis and are senior to the respondent. Therefore, she cannot be regularised in any other scheme. In view of the above stand, we direct the petitioners to continue the respondent in any other temporary scheme but keeping in mind the overall seniority of all the persons; the dispensing with the services should be on last-come-first-go basis, i.e., the juniormost incumbent has to go out first. As and when vacancies would arise, such persons whose services have been dispensed with will be taken back without following the practice of requisitioning the names of candidates from the employment exchange. They would be regularised only when regular posts are available and in accordance with the order of seniority.

p. 276, margin D

The special leave petition is accordingly ordered. R.P. Petition ordered.

p. 276, margin G