SURENDRA KUMAR & ORS. versus GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

SURENDRA KUMAR & ORS. versus GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

Appellants were appointed only pursuant to a policy decision for regularisation of contractual employees; they cannot seek regularisation with retrospective effect since at the time of advertisement the regularisation policy was not in vogue. The benefit of regularisation was intended only from the date of appointment. The High Court erred in quashing their appointments; however, their plea for retrospective regularisation is rejected.

Parties
Appellant: Surendra Kumar & Ors.; Respondent: Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From High Court Order
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed
Legal Topics
Regularisation of Contractual Employees, Retrospective Effect of Regularisation, Appointment Against Sanctioned Posts, Policy Decision for Regularisation
Service Law Regularisation of Contractual Employees Retrospective Effect of Regularisation Appointment Against Sanctioned Posts Policy Decision for Regularisation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Surendra Kumar & Ors.

Appellant

Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From High Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are entitled to regularisation of services with retrospective effect from date of advertisement
  2. 2 Whether High Court was right in quashing appointments of appellants as ex-facie illegal

Ratio Decidendi

Appellants were appointed only pursuant to a policy decision for regularisation of contractual employees; they cannot seek regularisation with retrospective effect since at the time of advertisement the regularisation policy was not in vogue. The benefit of regularisation was intended only from the date of appointment. The High Court erred in quashing their appointments; however, their plea for retrospective regularisation is rejected.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of High Court quashing appellants' appointment is set aside
  • Appellants' plea for regularization with retrospective effect is declined