Regularization - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court held that the authority's order, which rejected regularization claims on multiple fresh legal grounds—including qualifications and financial burden—constituted valid compliance with the High Court's direction. Since the rejection was not solely based on the prohibited "contract labour" ground, it could not be construed as wilful disobedience amounting to contempt of court. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from drivers engaged by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) seeking regularization of their services. Their initial representation was rejected by the NOIDA CEO in 2017 solely on the ground that they were intermittent workers hired through a contractor. This rejection was challenged and set aside by the Allahabad High Court in February 2020, wh...

The Supreme Court overturned the Kerala High Court's judgments, restoring previous orders that granted benefits of seniority, probation, and promotion to appellants with benchmark disabilities. The Court found the State Government's subsequent order, which sought to deny these benefits to those regularly appointed on supernumerary posts, to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court affirmed that once regular appointments were made, associated benefits could not be withdrawn. Facts Of The Case: The appellants are individuals with benchmark physical disabilities exceeding 40% who were temporarily engaged in various public institutions in Kerala under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, for periods not exceeding 179 days. ...

Tag: Regularization

Supreme Court Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court

Big Win for Disabled Workers: Supreme Court Strikes Down Discriminatory GO on Seniority and Promotion