Cr No. 80/14 "Neera Malik @ Neera Mahajan vs . State" on 9 October, 2014
CR No. 80/14 "Neera Malik @ Neera Mahajan Vs. State"
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.41 seconds)Documents citing
Neeraj Malik vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 18 August, 2006
Rajesh Kumar & Anr vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 5 May, 2022
The father of petitioner No.1 had expired in the year 2002 and
petitioner No.1 had also applied for compassionate appointment in that year.
The policy dated 08.05.1995 (Annexure P-1) was in operation at that time and
it had also been clarified on 19.11.2001 vide Annexure P-2. It has been held
by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Neeraj Malik versus State
of Haryana (supra) that the policy which was applicable at the time of the
death of an employee would be the policy which would govern the case of the
legal representatives for compassionate appointment. Petitioner No.1 had
applied for compassionate appointment immediately after the death of his
father. The application had remained pending and an order granted ex-gratia
amount of Rs.2.5 lacs was passed only in the year 2016. This petition had been
preferred immediately thereafter in the year 2017. Therefore, I am of the
considered view that the petition would not be debarred by delay and latches.
Date Of Decision: March 05 vs State Of Haryana And Others on 5 March, 2013
that these Regulations shall apply to every University established or
incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act,
every Institution including a constituent or an affiliated College
recognized by the Commission, in consultation with the University
concerned under clause(f) of Section 2 of the UGC Act and every
Institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the said Act.
These regulations are also framed in exercise of powers conferred on it
by Clauses (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the UGC Act
which have been amended vide University Grants Commission (Minimum
Qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of
teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) (3rd Amendment)
Regulation, 2009. As per these Regulations, those candidates who are or
have been awarded Ph.D. degrees in compliance of the Regulations, 2009
are to be exempted from requirement of the minimum eligibility condition
of NET/SLET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or
equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/institutions. It is not in
dispute that all these petitioners have obtained Ph.D. degrees in
compliance with Regulation, 2009. Following the ratio of University of
Delhi vs. Raj Singh (supra) and Neeraja Malik (supra), such Regulations
have a binding effect. Once the petitioners become entitled for exemption
on the application of Regulations framed by the UGC, they cannot be
debarred by virtue of impugned Regulations, which are contrary to the
regulations framed by the UGC. We feel that instead of amending their
Regulations and bringing them in conflict with UGC Regulations, the
appropriate course of action could have been to point out justification and
necessity for such a provision as is made by the respondents in their
CWP-24447-2012 & connected petitions - 19 -
Dr. Suresh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 February, 2014
20. The only difference is that UGC has now framed
Regulations, 2009, as noted above. Regulation-2 thereof also
provides that these Regulations shall apply to every University
established or incorporated by or under a Central Act,
Provincial Act or a State Act, every Institution including a
constituent or an affiliated College recognized by the
Commission, in consultation with the University concerned
under clause(f) of Section 2 of the UGC Act and every
Institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the
said Act. These regulations are also framed in exercise of
powers conferred on it by Clauses (e) and (g) of sub-section
(1) of Section 26 of the UGC Act which have been amended
vide University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications
required for the appointment and Career Advancement of
teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) (3rd
Amendment) Regulation, 2009. As per these Regulations,
those candidates who are or have been awarded Ph.D.
degrees in compliance of the Regulations, 2009 are to be
exempted from requirement of the minimum eligibility
condition of NET/SLET for recruitment and appointment of
Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in
Universities/Colleges/institutions. It is not in dispute that all
these petitioners have obtained Ph.D. degrees in compliance
with Regulation, 2009. Following the ratio of University of
Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar
2014.03.13 17:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Civil Writ Petition No.17566 of 2002 13
And Other connected Writ Petitions
Delhi vs. Raj Singh (supra) and Neeraja Malik (supra), such
Regulations have a binding effect. Once the petitioners
become entitled for exemption on the application of
Regulations framed by the UGC, they cannot be debarred by
virtue of impugned Regulations, which are contrary to the
regulations framed by the UGC. We feel that instead of
amending their Regulations and bringing them in conflict with
UGC Regulations, the appropriate course of action could have
been to point out justification and necessity for such a
provision as is made by the respondents in their Regulations
and to persuade the UGC to come out with similar
amendments.
Jiwan Lata And Ors. vs Kurukshetra University And Anr. on 26 February, 2008
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court, reported as "Neeraj Malik v. State of Haryana and Ors. 2007(1) R.S.J. 235" to contend that the Rules applicable on the date of death, would be applicable. However, operation of the said judgment has been stayed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 13.7.2007 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18972 of 2006.
Smt. Arun Lata vs Union Of India Through on 27 April, 2010
15. The learned counsel for the applicant has particularly cited judgment of the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court enclosed at Annexure-10 to the MA titled Neeraj Malik Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 18.08.2006 as well as order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Bangalore in B. Uma Vs. Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, Bangalore and Ors, dated 03.09.2004 along with judgment of the Honble high Court of Madhya Pradesh in T. Swamy Das Vs. UOI decided on 10.01.2002 in Writ Petition No. 5760/2000. However, on the basis of these judgments and orders as well as others quoted in the OA, it is not the case of the applicant that appointment on compassionate grounds could be granted in the absence of vacancy or that the purpose and object of the old Scheme was not to extend such appointment mainly to help overcome the sudden emergency and financial crises due to loss of the bread winner of the family.
Smt. Dropdi Devi And Others vs Miss Shashi Sharma And Others on 4 February, 2011
7. A perusal of the aforesaid Section would show that the
L.P.A. No. 204 of 2011 (O&M) 7
Council has been given the power to prescribe the standard
curricula for the training of nurses, midwives and health visitors, for
training courses for teachers of nurses, midwives and health
visitors, and for training in nursing administration. According to
clause (h), the Council can also prescribe the conditions for
admission to courses of training as prescribed in clause (g) and also
it could prescribe the standards of examination and other
requirements to be satisfied to secure recognition under this Act.
From the aforesaid provision, we are not able to read any power
that the Nursing Council could prescribe qualifications for
appointment either for direct recruitment or for promotion to the
post of Principal Tutor or any other nursing staff and, therefore, it
would not lie in the mouth of the appellants to claim that the
Parliament has enacted the law by exercising the powers as per
Entries 65 and 66 of the Union List of 7th Schedule of the
Constitution and consequently the 1998 Rules framed by the State,
are in conflict with the aforesaid provisions. Moreover, the Council
itself has not been conferred with any power to prescribe any
qualification. Reliance of Mr. Malik, on the judgment of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of University of Delhi v. Raj Singh, 1994
(5) SLR 286 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in
the case of Neeraja Malik v. State of Haryana, 1997(1) RSJ 246,
would have no application and is thus distinguishable because in
both the cases there was Central Legislation which was found to be
conflict with State enacted law.
Satya Devi vs State Of Haryana Through Its Secretary, ... on 29 November, 2007
Similar view was taken in the authority reported in case Neeraj Malik v. State of Haryana 2007(1) Recent Services Judgments 234.
Sandeep vs Educational Tribunal Appellate ... on 10 February, 2023
In a judgment rendered
by the Division Bench of this Court in Neeraja Malik versus State of Haryana,
1997(1) RSJ 246, it has been categorically held that the UGC has full power to
grant relaxation in any of its regulations and there is no justification for any
Government or University to ignore such relaxation. Therefore, once the UGC
itself has not prescribed the NET qualification for appointment, provided the
candidate has got M.Phil. degree, the Institution could not have ousted the
petitioner on that ground.
Premo Devi vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. ... on 29 November, 2007
7. We have carefully considered the submission of the petitioner in this regard, but do not find any force in that submission. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the authority reported as Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana 2007(2) S.C.T. 457 and a Division Bench of our own High Court in the authority reported as Neeraj Malik v. State of Haryana 2007(1) R.S.J. 235 has held that the Policy at the time of death of the employee is to be taken into account while granting ex-gratia financial assistance. Subsequent instructions regarding the compassionate assistance cannot be looked into. There was no guideline to grant of financial assistance available at the time of the death of the husband of the petitioner. So, the petitioner is also not entitled to financial assistance.