Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 246 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing Santosh Kumar Dubey vs State Of U.P. &Ors on 18 May, 2009

Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited vs Smt. Bugi Mahatain on 13 August, 2024

15 So far as the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (supra) is concerned, the time limit for seeking compassionate appointment was fixed for five years; basing upon the outer limit of 5 years provided for in the relevant scheme for compassionate appointment, and the fact of that case but unlike the case, in this case under the National Coal Wage Agreement--II, no time limit for seeking compassionate appointment has been provided for. Hence, the time limit for five years is not applicable to the facts of this case.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - A K Choudhary - Full Document

Unknown vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 11 September, 2012

10. I have carefully gone through the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey vs. State of U.P., 2009 (6) SCC 481, and the order of this Tribunal in the case of Ajit Meena vs. Union of India & Others (OA No. 155/2009 decided on 23.09.2010) and I am of the opinion that the ratio decided by the Honble Supreme Court and by this Tribunal in these cases are squarely applicable under the facts & circumstances of the present case.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Managing Director Madhya Pradesh ... vs Ashiq Shah on 7 June, 2021

Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P., (2009) 6 SCC 481 "12. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 31 - M Rafiq - Full Document

Krishna Singh Banafar vs State Of U.P. And Others on 1 February, 2013

23. Thus the Committee of Management was under statutory duty to take proceeding for promotion before occurrence of vacancy. All the exercise from initiation of proceeding up to appointment has to be completed within two and half month. The petitioner in his representation has stated that papers were forwarded for substantive promotion of the petitioner to the Commission but the Commission was not functioning and in the meantime Regional Selection Committee was constituted but the papers were neither transferred to the Regional Selection Committee nor the Management had forwarded fresh papers as such selection for regular promotion has been delayed. Thus, the statutory authorities have committed latches and lapse in discharging it's duty. The petitioner who was ultimately found fit and selected for the post will not be allowed suffer for the fault of the respondents. The continuous officiation of the petitioner on the basis of adhoc promotion is liable to be counted in the seniority of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.7.1995 when the permanent vacancy occurred on his being finally selected for the post of 'Lecturer (Hindi) on 9/10.03.2007, as held in Writ-A No. 65401 of 2006 Devendra Kumar Srivastav Vs. The State of U.P. and others, decided on 15.03.2007 and in Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and other 2010 (1) UPLBEC 156.
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shiv Kumar Dubey vs State Of U.P. And Others on 6 February, 2014

19. The provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules in the State of Uttar Pradesh specifically came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.15, In that case, the father of the appellant was untraced from 1981. The Supreme Court held that without going into the issue as to whether compassionate appointment could be sought in a case of deemed death under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, such a right could have been exercised in 1988 itself and the period of five years under Rule 5 would not enable the appellant to compute the period until 1993. In that context, the Supreme Court observed as follows:
Allahabad High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 88 - Full Document

Dugesh Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 November, 2021

Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P., (2009) 6 SCC 481 "12. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in government service."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S Paul - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next