Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 405 (1.06 seconds)
Documents citing State Bank Of India & Ors. .... ... vs Aspal Kaur ...Respondent(S) on 1 February, 2007

Anand Kumar Sharma vs State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary And Others on 28 May, 2013

The apex Court itself had occasion to consider the above case of State Bank of India Vs. Jaspal Kaur (supra) in (2010) 11 SCC 661 State Bank of India and another Vs. Raj Kumar. In the said case, the respondent father died on 1.10.2004. Application was made in June 2005 requesting for appointment on compassionate ground. When the application was being processed and verified, compassionate appointment was substituted by SBI scheme of payment of ex-gratia Lumpsum Amount w.e.f. 4.8.2005. The new scheme abolished the compassionate appointment.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sidheshwar Nath Nirala vs Union Of India Though Chief ... on 6 February, 2024

Thus, as per the judgment referred in State Bank of India & Ors. v. Jaspal Kaur (supra), the claim cannot be decided as per 2005 scheme providing for ex-gratia payment. The circular dated 14.02.2005 being an administrative or executive order cannot have retrospective effect so as to take away the right accrued to the respondent as per circular of 1993.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Shreyas Gramin Bank Thru' Chairman & ... vs Smt. Kasturi Devi on 29 February, 2016

2. The factual situation that is accepted before us is that husband of the petitioner-respondent was working as a Class-IV employee under the appellant-bank and he died in harness on 27.9.2005. Thereafter being as widow of late Lala Ram, the petitioner-respondent had proceeded to move an application for compassionate appointment on 8th October, 2005. The claim of the petitioner was rejected on 7.12.2010 precisely on the ground that in view of the new Scheme having been enforced, the petitioner-respondent is only entitled for ex-gratia lump sum amount which satisfies her claim, and as such, she was not entitled for compassionate employment. The said order was assailed before learned Single Judge on the ground that in the case of State Bank of India and others Vs. Jaspal Kaur reported in JT 2007 (3) SC 35, Hon'ble Apex Court had held that it is the scheme, which was applicable at the time of moving of the application, which has to be enforced and consequently the claim of the petitioner-respondent was liable to be considered for compassionate appointment. It had been pleaded before learned Single Judge that in view of Scheme, which was prevailing at the time of death of her husband, she was entitled for being considered for compassionate appointment and subsequent Circular issued by the appellant-bank would not divest her legitimate expectation for compassionate employment. Therefore, it was urged that she was entitled for consideration on the basis of the then existing Rules and the appellant-bank could not reject her claim on the basis of subsequent Circular.
Allahabad High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - V K Shukla - Full Document

Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs State Of Gujarat Through Secretary on 26 March, 2018

6. We have given our thoughtful considerations to rival submissions made by learned advocates for the parties in the context of judgement of learned Single Judge directing the appellant-Board to grant compassionate appointment to respondent No.2 by quashing and setting aside the order dated 9.5.2008 and 16.11.2009 whereby application of respondent No.2 for compassionate appointment came to be rejected, we find that learned Single Judge has threadbare Page 20 of 21 C/LPA/394/2018 ORDER referred to relevant facts and the scheme applicable at the time of death of the deceased, eligibility criteria of the claimant and reasons for denial of claim towards compassionate appointment by the authorities, the relevant paragraphs reproduced in earlier part of the judgement while referring to the facts and reasonings of the learned Single Judge and inability on the part of learned advocate for the appellant to dispute any of the grounds except the reliance on two decisions of the State Bank of India (supra) to which, we are in respectful agreement with, but facts and circumstances of this case would derive benefit of law laid down in the case of Canara Bank & Anr. (supra) to which, reference is made in the beginning of this judgement and we are convinced that the appeal is bereft of merit deserves to be dismissed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A S Dave - Full Document

Ratanben Devrajbhai Gopani vs State Of Gujarat on 19 April, 2022

21. At this stage, this Court would like to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Jaspal Kaur (supra), reported in (2007) 9 SCC 571, more Page 16 of 27 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:12:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9650/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022 particularly, Paragraph Nos.20 to 23 and 25 of the said order, which read as under,
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - V M Pancholi - Full Document

Amarkant Rao And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 2 July, 2010

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India and others vs. Jaspal Kaur (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the case of the petitioners have not been considered properly by the respondents/Railways under the scheme/policy, which was in vogue when they moved their respective applications. The order deciding their representations as well as the order passed by the Tribunal thus need to be interfered with, the same deserve to be and are hereby quashed.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P K Mishra - Full Document

V Rathinam vs D/O Post on 12 September, 2018

5. According to the counsel for the applicants, the RMP system was implemented from 2010 onwards and it was not the scheme that was prevalent at the time of application for compassionate appointment. The original scheme for compassionate appointment was as per OM No.14014/6/94 Estt.(D) dated 09.10.1998 and all the appointments had to be made in the basis of seniority, whereas the RMP scheme does not take into account the seniority, and applicant's of 2011 and 2012 gets priority on the basis of points. The counsel for the applicants submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India vs. Jaspal Kaur reported in (2007) 9 SCC 571 has held that in the case of compassionate appointment, the policy prevailing at that time of death of the employees who died in harness has to be applied and not the subsequent policy. Therefore, the rejection of the applications made by the applicants is liable to be set aside.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next