ROAR
Research, Opinions and Reviews:
Registered Users can write a blog/article/post up to 2,000 characters. The entire Law Fraternity is keen to hear from Lawyers, Solicitors, Judges and Legal professionals from respective Bar associations, state and territory to share ideas, give opinions and light on important matters.
Read More...
NEWS
BAR ASSOCIATION
LAW COLLEGE
EVENTS
TEMPLATES
SERVICES
JOB CENTRE
MOOT COURT
SL CONFIDENTIAL
RESOURCE CENTRE
Need a Lawyer
LAWYER’S FEE

SAT DW Parttime Non Regulrisation -Less Sallary

Like
Comment
Share

0 Like |
0 Comment |
40 |
0 |
1 |
0

In the docuemnt as attached above the staute holding sheer primacy is the "Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985"

The contents are as follows:-

Application Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

Respectfully Sheweth:

Particulars of the Applicant

As given in the Memo of Partie

Particulars of the Respondents

As given in the Memo of Parties.

. Impugned Order:

That the applicant is aggrieved by the action, rather inaction of the respondents in not regularizing the service of the applicant even after _____ years of service which act on the part of the respondents is arbitrary, malafide, illegal, ultra vires of the Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India and against the natural justice and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and this Hon'ble Tribunal.

That the applicant is also directing this application against non-payment of salary to the applicant equivalent to regular hands on the same and similar posts under the similar circumstances and with the same and the similar working conditions on the principles of Equal Pay for Equal Work as enunciated in the Constitution of India and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and this Hon'ble Tribunal in the catena of cases.

Jurisdiction

That the applicant declares that the subject matter is within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Tribunal.

Limitation:

That the applicant further declares that the application is within the limitation.

Facts of the Case:

That the applicant submits that he was appointed as a part-time class IV employee in ______ . Ever since the applicant has been continued as such without regularizing his services despite repeated requests and representations made by the applicant to the respondents.

2 That such an action on the part of the respondents is unreasonable, unconscionable and unjust even when the applicant has been retained in the service as a part-time employee for such a long period.

That here it would be pertinent to mention that the applicant was registered with the Employment Exchange. The name of the applicant was struck out by the Employment Exchange as the applicant was in the part-time employment of the respondents

That the applicant has always been working and discharging his duties with great zeal and fervour and to the entire satisfaction of his superiors. The respondents have been extracting a full-time work from the applicant even though the applicant is only a part-time worker. The respondents are thus resorting to the unfair labour practice and if the applicant would resist to do so, he would be doing so at the cost of his job. The respondents have, as a matter of fact, used the applicant as a bonded labour by paying him petty salary and extracting the full time job, which an archaic practice being adopted by the respondents to this day in our 50th year of Independence is the most reprehensible and condemnable and needs to be stopped by directing the respondents to regularise the services of the applicant.

That there is no one in the government service from the family of the applicant. The applicant belongs to a very poor family and to the Schedule caste category

That the applicant has completed more than 240 days in every calender year right from very beginning of his service and he was in possession of requisite qualification at every stage. The applicant was well within the prescribed age limit at the time of his initial engagement in the respondent department.

GROUNDS

That feeling aggrieved by such an arbitrary, malafide, discriminatory and illegal actions of the respondents, the applicant seeks the indulgence of this Hon'ble Tribunal on the following grounds amongst others, which may be taken at the time of arguments, each one of which is without prejudice to and independent of others :-

That the action, rather inaction of the respondents in not regularising the service of the applicant even after the applicant has served for such long period is arbitrary, malafide,

illegal, ultra vires, against the Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India, dehors the rules and regulations and against the natural justice and the principles of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and this Hon'ble Tribunal

That reasons ascribed by the respondents for non-regularisation of the service of the applicant are unconscionable, unreasonable, unjustified and not sustainable in the eyes of law.

That the respondents are estopped due to their own act, deed and conduct from denying the benefit of regularisation to the applicant, more so when they have extended such benefits to other similarly situated persons by relaxation of rules. The principle of the Promissory Estopple applies against the respondents.

That the impugned action is against the well settled principles of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Tribunal in catena of cases.

That the service of the applicant deserves to be regularised with effect from the date of his initial appointment and the applicant deserves to be paid arrears of salary on the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work.

That it is settled law that the denial of regularisation and arrears of the salary is a recurring injury and recurring cause of action.

And with this the document sees its completion