Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing Khadim Hussain vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 5 December, 2017

Arindam Choudhury vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 February, 2019

29. It appears from Syed Khadim Hussain (supra) that the widow of the concerned employee (who died-in-harness on September 12, 1991) had applied for compassionate appointment within time, i.e., on April 2, 1993 to be precise, but not in the prescribed proforma. On that ground the application was rejected. The appellant had thereafter applied on September 7, 1995, when he was 13 years' old. Such application was rejected after 6 years on the ground that when he had applied, the appellant was under- aged and, therefore, could not be appointed in Government service. The Court, after noting these facts, was of the following view:
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 17 - Cited by 5 - D Datta - Full Document

Azim Gazi vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 15 March, 2019

In the said judgement dated February 4, 2019 the coordinate Bench also taking note of the judgement delivered by the Supreme Court in Syed Khadim Hossain v. State of Bihar reported in (2006) 9 SCC 195 as well as the unreported decision of a learned judge of the Madras High Court in W.P. 25784 15 of 2010 (J. Jeba Mary v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board) made inference that the court in Syed Khadim Hussain (supra) moulded the relief claimed in favour of the applicant and, as such, the decision was made on application of Article 142 of the Constitution and is not be considered as a binding precedent within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - D Datta - Full Document

V.Deepika vs The District Collector on 8 July, 2022

4. The contention of the petitioner is that as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2006) 9 SCC 195 in respect of minors, they can move the application on attaining majority. The three years limitation would count only from the date of attaining majority. It was contended that the above issue was also dealt with in the judgment in W.P. (MD)No.11660 of 2015, dated 28.09.2016, and that the view in favour of minor was also confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.(MD)No.411 of 2017, dated 19.04.2017. The above said orders were based on the judgment rendered in SLP(C)No. 8305 of 2010, dated 06.07.2010. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order, dated 15.07.2019, relying 3/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.682 of 2022 upon certain precedents.
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 11 - S Srimathy - Full Document

N.Janaki vs The Principal Secretary To Government ... on 7 January, 2021

5.In the present case, though the petitioner's daughter was a minor at the time of her father's death, the petitioner/mother had made an application within 3 years from the date of the death of her husband, seeking compassionate appointment in favour of her daughter. By applying the propositions laid down in the aforesaid decisions, it could be said that the last application given by the petitioner on 16.09.2020 is in continuance of the earlier application made by herself on 05.06.2013 and since the petitioner's last application dated 16.09.2020 was within a period of 3 years from the date of her daughter's attaining majority, the respondents are not justified in rejecting the petitioner's application, on the ground that the petitioner's daughter was a minor within the stipulated period of 3 years from the date of death of the employee. As such, the impugned order itself cannot be sustained.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M S Ramesh - Full Document

S.Senthil Guru vs The Commissioner Of Commercial Tax on 5 January, 2021

5.In the present case, though the petitioner was a minor at the time of his father's death, his mother had made an application within 3 years from the date of the death of his father, seeking compassionate appointment in favour of any of his legal heirs. On attaining majority, (i.e., on 26.06.2017), the petitioner had also given a representation dated 26.02.2020, seeking for 4/7 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD) No.15806 of 2020 compassionate appointment for himself. By applying the propositions laid down in the aforesaid decisions, it could be said that the application given by the petitioner on 26.02.2020 is in continuance of the earlier application made by the mother of the petitioner on 01.12.2014 and since the petitioner's application dated 26.02.2020 was within a period of 3 years from the date of his attaining majority, the respondents are not justified in rejecting the petitioner's application on the ground that the petitioner was a minor within the stipulated period of 3 years from the date of death of the employee. As such, the impugned order itself cannot be sustained.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M S Ramesh - Full Document

Rajesh Nath vs The State Of Assam And 8 Ors on 18 November, 2022

8. Mr. SS Roy learned junior Government Advocate for the respondents points out that in the instant case, there was no such application made by the widow of the deceased which was incorrectly rejected, nor was any application made by the petitioner as a minor immediately within the prescribed time which Page No.# 5/8 required a consideration after he attained majority, and as such, the proposition laid down in Syed Khadim Hussain (supra), would be in applicable.
Gauhati High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A Barua - Full Document

P.Rahul vs Government Of Tamilnadu on 29 November, 2022

6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the first respondent to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioner's appeal dated 17.10.2022 within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While passing final orders, the first respondent shall take into consideration the Division Bench judgment of Madurai Bench of this Court dated 12.03.2021 in W.A. (MD) No.1478 of 2017 and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Khadim Hussain Vs. State of Bihar and 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 31871 of 2022 Others (2006 (9) SCC 195). The petitioner is directed to send a copy of the aforesaid decisions to the first respondent along with the copy of this order for effective implementation of this order.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A Quddhose - Full Document
1   2 3 Next