Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 39 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing Ex. Asi Shadi Ram vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 22 February, 2008

Raj Kumar vs Commissioner Of Police on 30 January, 2025

"15. At this stage, we may notice the authoritative pronouncement of a Division Bench of this court which is reported at 2008 V AD(Delhi) 3 Shadi Ram (Ex.ASI) vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (supra) which authoritatively lays down the applicable principles so far as the manner in which discretion for granting compassionate allowance in terms of rule 41 of the CCS(Pension) Rules and the Guidelines thereunder, has to be exercised. The observations and the findings of the court relevant for the present adjudication may usefully be extracted and read as follows :-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhanu Partap vs M/O Railways on 7 March, 2018

17. It is not disputed that the applicant has not approached the respondents in a proper time but taking into consideration the observations of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Shadi Ram (supra), it may happen that after a long lapse of time, the applicant may be in a hard position and not having any other options, could approach the respondents for grant of compassionate allowance.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raju Balmiki vs M/O Defence on 8 July, 2019

2. It is the case of the applicant that he was dismissed on ground of unauthorized absence after completion of about 29 years of satisfactory service and has thus, accrued a right to be considered for compassionate allowances as the same is obligation on the respondents under Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules and as well as in the light of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Ex-ASI Shadi Ram Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors..
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhimasen Gochayat vs Zonal Manager Bank Of India Respondents ... on 3 March, 2017

consideration, is concerned, the Government of India has also issued office memorandum formulating "Guiding principles for 12 grant of compassionate allowance" which was considered by the apex Court in paragraph-9 of the said judgment and has also been referred to by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. If such office memorandum, which has been issued in the shape of guideline, will be taken into consideration, that itself illustrative in nature which will be taken into consideration in determining in a particular case deserving for special consideration.
Orissa High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - V Saran - Full Document

Ex. Sub Paras Ram vs The Union Of India & Ors. on 10 July, 2014

11. This Court is of the view that it is such circumstances as the present, which require compassionate consideration. It is pertinent to note that in Shadi Ram (supra), the officer concerned was charged with illegal gratification, while the present case is of disproportionate assets. The former being a far more serious charge and compassionate allowance having been granted, this Court is of the view that a conviction for disproportionate assets of Rs.93,000/-, the petitioner, whose service of thirty (30) years otherwise shows merit, has also reached the second highest rank in his cadre through promotion on merit, should be granted compassionate allowance especially since he would have otherwise qualified for regular pension and gratuity. While the passage of time would not extenuate the seriousness of the charge _______________________________________________________________________ WP (C) No.2139 of 2012 Page 11 of 12 or the punishment, the entire tenure needs to be assessed and not be confined to the incident which led to his dismissal from service. The punishment meted out was the severest that could have been in the circumstances, i.e., he was dismissed from service without any pensionary benefits. The personal circumstances of the petitioner as narrated hereinabove too show a difficult disposition:
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - K Gambhir - Full Document

Din Dayal Yadav vs Union Of India & Anr. on 29 September, 2014

In the present case, on an analogy of Mahinder Dutt Sharma (supra) as well as Shadi Ram (supra) and Ex. Sub Paras Ram (supra), what is to be seen is that the petitioner had absented himself from duty for prolonged durations between 1985 and 1990, i.e. he was a habitual offender in absenting himself from duty from 6.2.1985 to 28.2.1985, 24.1.1989 to 27.4.1989, 6.5.1989 to 9.8.1989 and 24.4.1990 to 15.5.1990. He was found guilty of all the three charges levelled against him.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 17 - N Waziri - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next