Rajbir Singh S/O Late Ram Dass vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 28 August, 2015
In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138]; Auditor General of India v G. Ananta Rajeshwar Rao [(1994) 1 SCC 192]; L.I.C. v Asha Ram Chandra Ambekar and others [JT 1994 (2) SC 83]; Union of India v Joginder Sharma [(2002) 8 SCC 65]; Himachal Road Transport Corporation v Dinesh Kumar [JT 1996 (5) SC 319]; Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v Smt. A. Radhika Thirumalia [JT 1996 (9) SC 197]; Haryana State Electricity Board and another v Hakim Singh [JT 1997 (8) SC 332]; Haryana State electricity Board v Naresh Tanwar and another [JT 1996 (2) SC 542]; Jagdish Prasad v State of Hihar [(1996) 1 SCC 301]; and a judgment of High Court of Delhi dated 10.03.2005 in WP No.1594/2003 in Raj Kumar Lohmorh v GNCT of Delhi. The learned counsel also relied on DOP&T OM No.14014/6/95-Estt., dated 26.09.1995 intimating that compassionate appointment can be made up to a maximum of 5% of the vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in Group C and D posts.