Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 723 (1.99 seconds)
Documents citing Local Administration Department & Anr vs M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu on 5 April, 2011

Arvind Tulsidas Sakaria vs M/O Railways on 16 August, 2017

In Local Administration Department Vs. M. Selvanayagamn, 2011(2) SLJ 260, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that even a son of the deceased government servant if he is able to survive for certain years, then it is deemed that the immediate mitigating poverty has been overcome and the applicant will not be entitled to the Compassionate Appointment. The Applicant was born on August, 1984 and was around 31 years of age at the time of filing of the OA. His elder step-brother had himself got an employment in the Railways on compassionate appointment on the death of their father in 1992. Since the applicant was already more than 30 years of age at the time of filing the OA, it is unlikely that he was dependent on the deceased and therefore, is not entitled to compassionate appointment. Once the applicant had become a major, he was not entitled to the Medical facility under the Identity Card of his elder step-brother nor is he entitled to the Railway passes or other welfare facility as a dependent. 7 OA No.191/2015 As per the records submitted by the applicant, he passed SSC in the year 2007 and he has not explained what he was doing from 2007 to the time of filing the OA. It is unlikely he will be without any work till the age of 30/31 years and therefore cannot seek compassionate appointment by way of right on the ground that he was totally dependent on his late step-brother for all his needs. Therefore, the OA deserves to be dismissed on the ground of being devoid of merit.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yogesh Kumar Tripathi vs Union Of India on 22 February, 2022

We are not impressed with the submission that delay should not be taken into account since Paragraph 8 of the Scheme contemplates that in a situation where all the dependant children of the deceased employee have yet to attain the age of majority, the time limit for submission of an application is extended until the first of the children attains the age of twenty one years. A case where each of the children is a minor falls in a different class altogether. This cannot be equated with a situation where a dependant of a deceased employee who was a major on the date of death fails to submit an application within a reasonable period of time from the death of the employee. This aspect of delay has been dealt with in other decisions of this Court, including State of J&K Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir12 and Local Administration Department Vs. M. Selvanayagam13.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M Viswakarma vs M/O Railways on 9 November, 2017

13. I have considered the case laws cited by the respondents and accept their contention that there has been a delay in claiming compassionate appointment by the applicant [Local Administration Department vs. M.Selvanayagam (supra)], [National institute of Technology & Ors. vs. Niraj Kumar Singh(supra)]. The Government employee died in 2005, the prayer for compassionate appointment was made after a gap of six years in 2011.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Usha Pandey vs S I B on 4 August, 2025

"...4.​ And whereas, the request of Smt. Usha Pandey for compassionate appointment of her daughter, Ms. Vandita Pandey was considered by the Compassionate Appointment Committee (CAC) of IB on 23.8.2019. However, Ms. Vandita Pandey could not be recommended for appointment as the family was not found indigent. The CAC dwelt on various aspects of Compassionate Appointment envisaged in DoP&T O.M. dt. 16.1.2013 according to which appointment on compassionate grounds can be given to the dependent family Digitally MADHU signed by Page 8 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./115/2023 member of a Govt. servant dying in harness, thereby leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood to relieve the family from financial destitution. Para 18 (c) of the same O.M. further emphasises that while considering a request for appointment on compassionate ground, a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account its assets and liabilities, including the benefits received under various welfare schemes of the govt., and all other relevant factors such as the presence of an earning member, size of family, ages of the children and the essential needs of the family, etc. The above said O.M. is in consonance with the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgments dt. 5.4.2011 and 4.5.1994 in the cases of Civil Appeal No. 2206 of 2006 filed by Local Administration Department Vs. M. Selvanayagam and Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs State of Haryana and others respectively.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raju Sharma vs Textiles on 2 April, 2024

In the case of Local Administration Department vs. M. Selvanayagam, AIR 2011 S.C. 1880, the application was filed by the son of deceased employee after 7-½ years from the date of his father. The wife of deceased has not made an application immediately after the death of the deceased as she suffered from anemia and low blood pressure. The Court found that the explanation given is unacceptable and held that a person suffering from such ailments would greatly prefer the security and certainty of regular job cannot be ground to allow her son's claim. Therefore, the claim of the son of the deceased was denied.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anand Kumar vs M/O Communications on 12 September, 2023

The primary objective of scheme for compassionate appointment circulated vide O.M. No. 14014/6/94-Estt(D) dated 09.10.1998 is to provide immediate assistance to relieve the dependent family of the deceased or medically retired Government servant from financial Page No.14 destitution i.e. penurious condition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 05.04.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 2206 of 2006 filed by Local Administration Department vs. M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu has observed that "an appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependents as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind".
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anagha Vinod Gopal vs State Of Maha., Thr. Its Secretary, Law ... on 16 September, 2022

6. In the instant case, the time of about 12 years has lapsed after the untimely death of the breadwinner of the family and yet the family has managed to survive. In fact, from the own admission of the petitioner, it is seen that the mother of the petitioner is getting her monthly pension of Rs.9,700/- and has also received an amount of Rs.3,80,591/- towards terminal benefits. So, it is not the case of the petitioner that her entire family will come on street. Therefore, the law propounded by the Apex Court in the case of Local Administration Department Vs. M. Selvanayagam alias Kumaravelu (supra) is squarely applicable to the present case and accordingly, we find that the petitioner is not entitled to be provided compassionate appointment by making an exception to the rule of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S B Shukre - Full Document

Unknown vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 10 April, 2012

17. This Court, times without number has held that appointment on compassionate ground should not be granted as a matter of course. It should not be granted only when dependants of the deceased employee who expired all of a sudden while being in service and by reason thereof his dependants have been living in penury. Recently, the Honble Apex Court has held in the case of Local Administration Department & Another versus M.Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu (Civil Appeal No.2206 of 2006) decided on April 5, 2011 that An appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependents as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased employee, would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next