w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Jagdish Chandra v/s School Education Department


Company & Directors' Information:- JAGDISH AND COMPANY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U63040NL1996PTC004781

Company & Directors' Information:- A SCHOOL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80211TN2011PTC079455

Company & Directors' Information:- JAGDISH CHANDRA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U52520MP1981PTC001827

Company & Directors' Information:- H CHANDRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65990MH1952PTC008894

Company & Directors' Information:- K-EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80301MH2014PTC256056

    WP. No. 16274 of 2018

    Decided On, 24 July 2018

    At, High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. C. SHARMA

    For the Petitioner: Chandrakant Verma, Learned Counsel. For the Respondent: Mukesh Kumawat, Learned Counsel.



Judgment Text

The petitioners before this Court, who are employees of worked charged contingency paid establishment have filed this present petition claiming kramonnati / time bound promotion pay-scale on completion of 10-20 years and 12-24 years of service.

The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Hand Pump Mechanics/Technicians in the year 1991 and they were engaged under the work charged and contingency paid establishment and in terms of various judgments of this Court they are entitled for Kramonnati pay-scale.

The stand of the respondents is that since the petitioners are working under the work-charged contingency paid establishment, the scheme of Kramonnati as contained in the circular dated 17.03.1999 and 19.04.1999 is not applicable to the petitioners and, therefore, the case for grant of Krammonati pay-scale deserves to be rejected.

It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that their case is covered by the judgment delivered in the case of Teju Lal Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors., reported in ILR (2009) MP 1326 decided on 23.01.2009.

Undisputedly, the petitioners were appointed on 27.11.1991 and they have certainly completed the number of years as required for grant of time bound promotion.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it is found that the issue involved in the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the matter of Teju Lal Yadav Vs. State of MP & others reported in ILR (2009) MP 1326 wherein this Court in the light of the same circulars has considered the issue of grant of krammonat pay scale to the work charged and contingency paid employee and on placing reliance upon the earlier judgment in the matter of K.L. Asre Vs. State passed on 7/11/2005 in Writ Petition (s) 1070/2003 has held as under:

'6. Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee. Under the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978, a contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to 'Office Contingencies' but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year. In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees is done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary. Under sub-rule 2 of Rule-6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of permanent work charged or contingency paid employee. The similar provisions are made in the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 wherein the permanent employee is defined under Rule 2(c) to mean a contingency paid employee or a work charged employee who has completed 15 years of service or more on or after 1st January 1974.

7. The complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the MP Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979.

8. Considering the fact that under the statutory rules also the contingency paid and the work charged employees are considered to be forming a common class. There is no reason why the benefit of time bound promotion which is extended to the work charged employees and why the judgment rendered in case of K.L. Asre (supra) be not made applicable in the case of the present employee also who has attained the status of a permanent work charged or contingency paid employees and entitled to various benefits in the matter of revision of pay and pension in identical manner.

9. A perusal of the Policy as contained in Annexure P/3 further indicates that even though the policy speaks about granting krammonati under the scheme to employees in the regular establishment, but by Clause (13) and (14) of the Scheme, the Government has extended the benefit of Krammonati to vehicle drivers working in the work charged and contingency paid establishment. A perusal of Clauses (13) and (14) clearly indicates that the benefit of krammonati after completing 12 years and 24 years of service is made applicable to employees in the work charged and contingency paid establishment.

10. As far as work charged and contingency paid employees are concerned, their service conditions are governed by the same rules namely the Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment Rules, applicable to various departments and the work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules 1979 and the Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990. For the purpose of recruitment, appointment, pay revision and grant of pensionary benefits, the work charged and contingency paid employees constitute a common class and their terms and conditions of employment are governed by identical set of rules. It is, therefore, clear that for the purpose of recruitment, appointment, grant of pension and revision of pay scales, work charged and contingency paid employees are treated similarly and a separate set of rules, different from the one applicable in the regular establishment, govern their terms and conditions of employment. The work charged and contingency paid employees constitute a common class and therefore, this class of employees are entitled to similar treatment in all respects, deviation being permissible on justifiable grounds and reasons. In the present case, the benefit of time bound promotion under the scheme- Annexure P/3 and P/4 is extended to vehicle drivers working in the work charged and contingency paid establishment, as per the policy itself.

11. The principles laid down in the case of Shri K.L. Asre (supra) has been made applicable to time keepers, working work charged and contingency paid establishment. If time keepers and drivers in the work charged and contingency paid establishment are entitled to promotion under the time bound scheme, there is no reason as to why the said benefit be not extended to other employees constituting the same class in the work charged and contingency paid establishment. The policy is made applicable to drivers of his establishment and the reason for not making the said policy applicable to other categories of the work charged and contingency paid establishment is not indicated in the return. No reason is given as to why a different policy is being adopted in the case of other employees in the work charged and contingency paid establishment and the benefit granted to drivers in the said establishment is not extended to other employees like the petitioner. Respondents being a 'State' has to give similar benefit to employees similarly situated and forming a common class. They may be justified in granting some additional benefit to some of the employees in comparison to others, but the justification and reasons for such a classification has to meet the test of Article 14 of the Constitution and the decision has to be reasonable, fair and justified by cogent reasons and relevant considerations. Except for contending that the policy is not applicable to employees working in the work charged and contingency paid establishment, no justification is forthcoming from the respondents with regard to further classification amongst the employees working in the work charged and contingency paid establishment with regard to implementation of the Policy - Annexure P-3 and P-4. When the employees working in the work charged and contingency paid establishment constitute a common class, all benefits which are extended to one set of employees namely drivers as per the policy and the time keepers in the light of the judgment in the case of K.L. Asre (supra) has to be granted by the respondents to the present petitioners also. In the absence of proper justification for adopting a different policy and cogent reason given justifying the reasonableness in the classification and differentiation done fulfilling the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution, discrimination cannot be permitted. Parity in employment is required to be maintained and therefore, keeping in view the circumstances and the action of the respondents in adopting a pick and choose method violative of Article 14 of the Constitution in the case of employees who form a homogeneous class the action discriminatory in nature cannot be upheld by this Court.

12. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the respondents are directed to extend the benefit of promotion in accordance with the aforesaid scheme to the petitioner and after evaluating his case in accordance with the requirements of the said scheme, grant benefit to the petitioner. In case the petitioner is found entitled then necessary orders in this regard be passed within a period of three months.

13. The petition is accordingly a

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

llowed and disposed of.' The another important aspect of the matter is that the State Government has issued circular on 21.09.2016 granting the benefit to the work charged contingency paid establishment w.e.f. 01.01.2016. The executive instructions issued by the State Government cannot supersede the judgment delivered by this Court, which has attained finality and, therefore, the executive instructions issued by the State Government to the extent the cut-of-date has been fixed is hereby quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled for all consequential benefits, which have been extended to Tejulal Yadav (supra) on account of the order passed by this Court. The petitioners shall be entitled for Kramonnati w.e.f. 2003 and time bound pay-scale w.e.f. 2013. The petitioners shall also be entitled for monetary benefits and arrears for the above period. The exercise of passing an appropriate order granting the benefits be concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

03-06-2020 M. Karunya Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-05-2020 Lakhamshi Govindji Haria School Versus Kirit Bhupatbhai Bhatt & Another High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
27-05-2020 M. Lokesh & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary Department of Education, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
19-05-2020 The Manager, Devadar Aided Lower Primary School, Puliyil, Malappuram District Versus U. Usha & Others High Court of Kerala
18-05-2020 K. Gautham Versus The Director of Medical Education, EVR Periyar Salai, Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
15-05-2020 Yogesh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Chief Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
08-05-2020 Union of India Versus Narayan Chandra Jena & Another Supreme Court of India
05-05-2020 Shobha Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Annexe, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
30-04-2020 Gajanan Shahu Keripale Versus The State of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, School Education & Sports Dept, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Kashish Gupta Versus The Central Board of Secondary Education, Represented by its Secretary, Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
28-04-2020 Ratan Chandra Gogoi & Others Versus State of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
27-04-2020 P. Chandrasekhar Rao & Another Versus The State of Telangana Rep by its Special Chief Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
24-04-2020 Naresh Kumar Versus Director of Education & Another High Court of Delhi
20-04-2020 Umesh Chandra Saxena Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
15-04-2020 Dr. Srinivas Guntupalli Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Guntur & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-04-2020 Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur, Ravindranath Tagore Marg, through its Registrar & Another Versus State of Maharashtra, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, through its Secretary & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
23-03-2020 Delhi Public School, East Versus Central Board of Secondary Education & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
20-03-2020 Suresh Chandra Das Versus The State of Tripura to be represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Civil Secretariat, New Secretariat Complex, West Tripura & Another High Court of Tripura
20-03-2020 Professor Smt. Manorama Prakash Khandekar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Higher and Technical Education Department, through its Secretary, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
20-03-2020 Deepak & Another Versus Central Board of Secondary Education & Others High Court of Delhi
19-03-2020 Ram Chandra Prasad Singh Versus Sharad Yadav Supreme Court of India
19-03-2020 SanatombaHaobam Versus The State of Manipur, represented by the Commissioner/ Secretary(Education-S), Government of Manipur, Secretariat, Imphal & Others High Court of Manipur
18-03-2020 Abhighyan Bhattacharya & Another Versus School Of Engineering & Technology & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-03-2020 Meghna Singh (Through: Her Natural Guardian) Avita D Lal Versus Central Board of Secondary Education & Another High Court of Delhi
16-03-2020 Indira Cheriya Kadavan Versus V.M. Gangadharan, Manager, Thillankery U.P School, Kannur & Others High Court of Kerala
16-03-2020 A. Pandi Selvi Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-03-2020 Bhavna Kisan Uradya & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-03-2020 Nitin Kumar Jain Versus Union of India, Through, Human Resources Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
12-03-2020 Ramesh Chandra Singh & Another Versus Central Bureau of Investigation High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
12-03-2020 Navanita Chowdhury Versus Govt. of NCT, Delhi, Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education & AnotherQ Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
11-03-2020 K. Dharmaraj & Others Versus Sir M.Ct.Muthaiah Chettiar, Higher Secondary School Trust, Rep. by its President, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2020 Pramodini Mangesh Rukari Versus The Superintendent, Pay & Provident Fund Unit, Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-03-2020 Mukund Marutirao Jagtap Versus Superintendent, Pay & Provident Fund Unit, Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-03-2020 Dnyaneshwar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-03-2020 Hasina Siraj Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra Secretary through Department of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Jaggu Sardar @ Jagdish Tirathsing Labana @ Punjabi Versus The State of Maharashtra (Through the Office of the Government Pleader, High Court, A.S. Mumbai) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-03-2020 Aided Primary School, rep. by its Secretary, Thazhambadi, Puduchathiram Union, Namakkal District Versus The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Dr. Nishigandha Ramchandra Naik Versus State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Kailash Chandra Agarwal & Others Versus State of Rajasthan & Another High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
04-03-2020 Phool Chandra Versus State of U.P. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
04-03-2020 S. Aruputharaj Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, Education, Science & Technology, Madras & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-03-2020 Dr. Anil D. Garje Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary Higher & Technical Education Department Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-03-2020 Indian Society for Technical Education, Rep., by its Executive Secretary, Saheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi Versus Anna University, Rep., by its Registrar, Guindy, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 Vikrant Prataprao Gaikwad & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-02-2020 Vikrant Prataprao Gaikwad & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary School Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-02-2020 Taraknath College of Education Versus National Council For Teacher Education & Another High Court of Delhi
26-02-2020 Manager & Correspondent, Madasa E.Deeniyath Aided Elementary School, Ambur Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2020 Nitin Ramesh Khedekar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-02-2020 Raya Xavier (Died) & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-02-2020 S. Raghavendhiran & Others Versus The Commissioner, Director of Technical Education, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-02-2020 Chandra Bhushan Shukla Versus Surmila (Dead) & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
21-02-2020 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Chennai & Another Versus The Secretary/Correspondent, Loyola College [Autonomous], Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-02-2020 Secretary, Bairgachi High School Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
21-02-2020 Chandra & Others Versus Sri Kakumani Adikesavalu Chetty Charities, Rep. by its Managing Trustees, Madras & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-02-2020 P. Saju, Senior Grade Printer, Government Central Press, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary To Government, Higher Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
20-02-2020 P. Peter Paul Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-02-2020 Harish Chandra Singh Versus State of M.P. Through State House Officer, Police Station Ratlam & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
19-02-2020 The Manager, St. Paul's Higher Secondary School, Kozhinjampara Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary To Government, General Education Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
18-02-2020 Jagdish Prasad Vijay Versus Niti Aaayog, Erstwhile, Planning Commission Through The Dy. Chairman, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
18-02-2020 Banajit Deka Versus The Union of India, Through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
18-02-2020 Mohd Shafiq & Others Versus Anuradha Gupta, Director School Education & Another High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
13-02-2020 Baheti Education Trust Versus Nemaram High Court of Rajasthan
13-02-2020 Chandra Shekhar Azad Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
11-02-2020 G. Thamaraiselvi Versus Secretary To Government, Union of India, (Department of Higher Education), Ministry of Human Resources Development, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-02-2020 Mukulika Sharma & Others Versus The State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Secondary Education, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
06-02-2020 Rakesh Chandra Savita Versus United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager & Another Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
06-02-2020 Gopal Chandra Mishra & Others Versus The Chairman, Vananchal Gramin Bank, Dumka & Others High Court of Jharkhand
06-02-2020 Mahesh Kumar Sharma Versus The Principal, Vidya Niketan Birla Public School, Pilani District Jhunjhunu & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
06-02-2020 Vir Singh Versus Chandra Lata & Another High Court of Delhi
06-02-2020 Navshakti Educational Society Versus Laxman Public School & Others High Court of Delhi
05-02-2020 Dipak Chandra Dhar, Senior Trackman, Under Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) N.F. Railway, Silchar Versus Union of India, Represented by the General Manager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
05-02-2020 Kajal V/S Jagdish Chand and Others. Supreme Court of India
05-02-2020 Govinda Chandra Tiria Versus Sibaji Charan Panda & Others Supreme Court of India
05-02-2020 Chandra Shekhar Dubey & Others Versus Narendra & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
04-02-2020 Dr. Satish Chandra Versus M/s. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
04-02-2020 S. Pugazhendi, President, Subash Chandra Bose Podhu Nala Sangam, Nagapattinam Versus Dy.Superintending Engineer/Public Information Officer, Office of the Superintending Engineer, Highways Department, Madurai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-02-2020 St.John's English Primary School & Another Versus Education Officer, (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
04-02-2020 Mahendra Singh Thakur Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
04-02-2020 School Management, St. Xavier Public School Korba Versus Raghuvanshi Chandra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-02-2020 K. Chandra Sekhar Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh High Court of for the State of Telangana
01-02-2020 Bipul Chandra Das & Another Versus Rakhi Acharjee & Others High Court of Tripura
31-01-2020 Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Others Versus Panna Mahesh Chandra Dave & Another Supreme Court of India
31-01-2020 Shirpur Education Society Through Its Principal Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others Supreme Court of India
30-01-2020 Sumant Kumar Dixit Versus Central Public Information Officer, Central Board of Secondary Education Central Information Commission
29-01-2020 Dr. M. Abdul Salam Versus The State of Kerala Represented by Its Principal Secretary To Government, Department of Higher Education, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
29-01-2020 S. Sakthivel Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 Biresh Chandra Giri Versus State of Orissa High Court of Orissa
28-01-2020 B. Jayalakshmi Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by the Principal Secretary Department of Education (Primary & Secondary) & Others High Court of Karnataka
28-01-2020 Reckitt Benckiser School India Ltd V/S Union of India and Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-01-2020 T.V. Thomas, P.D. Teacher, Govt. U.P. School, Thottumukkom, Kozhikode & Others Versus Joint Secretary, General Education Department, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
24-01-2020 The Trustee Hidaya Educational & Charitable Trust, Muhammed Umer, Thiruvananthapuram Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary, Department of General Education, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
24-01-2020 G. Maria Antony Michael Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
23-01-2020 E. Saral Versus The Director of School Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-01-2020 Arunabh Sinha Versus Panuganti Vijay Chandra Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
23-01-2020 Justice Valluri Seethamahalakshmi Versus Sara Chandra Environ Solutions Pvt Ltd. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
22-01-2020 The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai & Others Versus P. Manikandan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2020 J. Anulatha Versus The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2020 Somireddy Chandra Mohan Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh High Court of Andhra Pradesh
20-01-2020 Chandra Kanta Versus State of Rajasthan High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
14-01-2020 S.M. Zaheer Alam Versus National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) through its Chairperson, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box