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

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS versus BISHAMBER DUTT

Decided
23 October 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 650 · 1996 INSC 1207
Also cited as
  • (1996) 11 SCC 341 (12 citing judgments)
  • (1997) SCC(L&S) 478 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
3 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 5 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

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.

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 650, margin E

These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi.

p. 650, margin F

The admitted position is that the respondent along with others came to be appointed on September 3, 1990 , November 14, 1991 and September 14, 1994 as Class IV employees in the office of the Controller of Defence Accounts on part-time basis. There is a controversy as to whether they are appointed on hourly basis or on regular basis. The admitted position is that they were receiving the consolidated pay of Rs. 500 per month which was raised to Rs. 600 per month for working six hours a day. It is not necessary to consider the case whether it is full-time or hourly basis or monthly basis.

p. 650, margin F

Suffice it to state that they were not appointed to a regular post after selection according to rules; they were appointed as part-time employees de hors the rules. The question, therefore, is: whether they are entitled to the temporary status or regularisation as directed by the Tribunal? It is seen that pursuant to the enquiry whether temporary status should be granted to the part-time employees, directions were issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension dated July 12, 1994 in the Memorandum, Clause 3, that they are not entitled to such status. Since they are not appointed on regular basis in accordance with rules the direction issued by the Tribunal to regularise the service is obviously illegal. It is then contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that in view of the fact that they were regularly working for a long time they are entitled to regularisation. We do not appreciate the stand taken on behalf of the respondents. Unless they aie appointed on regular basis according to rules after consideration of the claims on merits, there is no question of regularisation of the services.

p. 651, margin A

The appeals are accordingly allowed. The orders of the Tribunal is set aside. No costs. G.N. Appeals allowed.

p. 651, margin D