citedby: 571995

State Of Gujarat vs Upendra P. Barot on 31 March, 2003

So far as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Phoolwati (supra) is concerned, the decision in the case of Smt. Sushma Gosain (supra) has been referred in the case of Smt. Phoolwati (supra).

Gujarat High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Smt. Sheela Rani Soam on 30 August, 2007

In Sushma Gosain v. Union of India it was observed that in all claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the Scheme itself envisages specifically otherwise, to state that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit.

Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

G.Ramesh Kumar vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 27 November, 2017

40. In view of the above discussion, the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, ought not to have been entertained, as on the date of application, he was minor, aged about 12 years. Reference can also be made to a decision made in Sushma Gosain v. Union of India reported in 1989 (4) SCC 468.

Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

B.Radhika vs The Executive Director on 13 November, 2017

40. In view of the above discussion, the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, ought not to have been entertained, as on the date of application, he was minor, aged about 12 years. Reference can also be made to a decision made in Sushma Gosain v. Union of India reported in 1989 (4) SCC 468.

Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

R.Vinoth vs Indian Overseas Bank on 7 November, 2017

40. In view of the above discussion, the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, ought not to have been entertained, as on the date of application, he was minor, aged about 12 years. Reference can also be made to a decision made in Sushma Gosain v. Union of India reported in 1989 (4) SCC 468.

Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

Selvi Jayashri vs The Superintending Engineer on 31 October, 2017

40. In view of the above discussion, the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, ought not to have been entertained, as on the date of application, he was minor, aged about 12 years. Reference can also be made to a decision made in Sushma Gosain v. Union of India reported in 1989 (4) SCC 468.

Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

Smt.K.R.Pushpavathy vs Director General Of Police on 6 November, 2017

40. In view of the above discussion, the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, ought not to have been entertained, as on the date of application, he was minor, aged about 12 years. Reference can also be made to a decision made in Sushma Gosain v. Union of India reported in 1989 (4) SCC 468.

Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

M.Manivannan vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 3 November, 2017

40. In view of the above discussion, the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, ought not to have been entertained, as on the date of application, he was minor, aged about 12 years. Reference can also be made to a decision made in Sushma Gosain v. Union of India reported in 1989 (4) SCC 468.

Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

S.Kathiresan vs The Chairman Cum Managing Director on 20 October, 2017

40. In view of the above discussion, the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, ought not to have been entertained, as on the date of application, he was minor, aged about 12 years. Reference can also be made to a decision made in Sushma Gosain v. Union of India reported in 1989 (4) SCC 468.

Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

O.Nagaraj vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 30 October, 2018

40. In view of the above discussion, the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, ought not to have been entertained, as on the date of application, he was minor, aged about 12 years. Reference can also be made to a decision made in Sushma Gosain v. Union of India reported in 1989 (4) SCC 468.

Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results