Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 109 (0.62 seconds)
Documents citing Abhishek Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 4 December, 2006

Bhoi vs State on 12 October, 2010

In view of the aforesaid, the respondents are required to be directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the basis of the policy prevailing at the relevant time when the father of the petitioner died on 14.10.93 or when the application was made by the petitioner on 29.06.98, as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of in Abhishek Kumar Vs State of Haryana and others reported in 2006 (13) SCALE at page 658, and in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Jaspal Kaur reported in JT 2007 (3) SC page 35.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Samir Kohli & Ors. vs Union Of India & Others on 13 April, 2012

16. It was argued that the DDA, being a subordinate authority, under the 1957 Act, could not question the decision of the Central Government, or refuse to obey it, in view of Section 41 of the Act, and Section 41 (3) in particular. Reliance was placed on the decisions reported as Abhishek Kumar v State of Haryana 2006 (12) SCC 44 and State of Kerala v Kurian Abraham 2008 (3) SCC 582.
Delhi High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 2 - S R Bhat - Full Document

The Chief General Manager vs Rajesh.S on 8 June, 2010

In Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana and others OP(CAT) No.458/2010, etc. 44 {(2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 308} the facts show that the appellant's father expired on 10.2.2001 and an application was filed by the appellant within two weeks of the date of his death, which was rejected. This was challenged before the High Court. The rejection was on the ground that in the District to which he applied there was no existing vacancy. Before the High Court the State relied upon a later scheme dated 28.2.2003 and relying upon the same, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Apex Court allowed the appeal. Paragraph 5 of the judgment is important which we extract below:
Kerala High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - T R Nair - Full Document

Vijay Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 3 July, 2015

In Abhishek Kumar's case (supra), the facts were that the appellant's father expired on 10-2-2001 while in office. In terms of the rule, as it was existing then, the appellant was entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds. An application for such an appointment was filed by the appellant within about two weeks of the death of his father. Not only the appellant was denied appointment in District Yamuna Nagar although his deceased father had been employed as a Kanungo in District Yamuna Nagar, when he sought to be appointed in the district of Karnal, the same was denied to him by the District Magistrate, Karnal inter alia on the plea that there does not exist any vacancy.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - H S Sidhu - Full Document

The State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Purnima Das & Ors on 13 September, 2017

However, the subsequent decision in Raj Kumar (supra), without noticing Abhishek Kumar (supra), appears to have taken a view that is apparently inconsistent and the two views cannot be reconciled. It has laid down the law that if during the pendency of an application for compassionate appointment the relevant scheme is substituted by a new scheme, the application has to be considered in terms of the new scheme and not the scheme that has become extinct.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - D Datta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next