Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs Sima Banerjee on 10 January, 2017

Harsh Malik vs Comm. Of Police on 13 February, 2026

In response to the reply/contentions of the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant by referring to the rejoinder submitted that so far as preliminary submission in which the extract of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Sima Banerjee (supra) has been referred, however, the respondents have not mentioned as to what they seek to convey by quoting the same. The respondents have assigned specific reason disqualifying the applicant for compassionate appointment, as such the said judgment is not applicable in this case. 6.1 Learned counsel for the applicant besides reiterating the submissions as noted above submitted that the father of the applicant was not involved as alleged. Merely because of an investigation report, which is subject to judicial scrutiny by way of trial, the father of the applicant can be branded as a criminal and the family can be disqualified from seeking compassionate appointment. The impugned policy is bad in law, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and has no reasonable nexus with the 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 21 OA No.2278/2019 object sought to be achieved. The said impugned provision is illegal and liable to be set aside.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vishal Kapil vs M/O Defence on 27 August, 2018

5. He also took place the proceedings of Board of Officers on 09.09.2003 by which in para 2 submitted that the applicant was allotted 26 points. He also drawn my attention to the scheme annexed with the reply and also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of UOI vs. Sima Banerjee in Civil Appeal No. 251 of 2017 has held that the compassionate appointment of several years after death was not justified. Hence, considering appointment on compassionate grounds after elapsed of considering period is not justified.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vidya Devi vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 24 August, 2022

Thus, we are of the considered opinion that keeping in view the law settled in the Union of India Vs. Sima Banerjee, 2017 (1) RSJ 351 and the recent judgment of the Apex Court in 'The Secretary to Government Department of Education (Primary) & others Vs. Bheemesh @ Bheemappa', 2022 (1) SCT 204, that the principle of appointment on compassionate basis is an exception and the present case, as noticed, it is not a case where the 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 31-08-2022 20:36:47 ::: LPA-317-2020 -4- exception is to be resorted to keeping in view the fact that the family could afford the postponement of the immediate appointment for a period of two and a half decades before it started pursuing the remedy when the minor became major. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for issuance of a writ of mandamus as such for grant of the benefit of the compassionate appointment at this belated stage.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 23 March, 2018

3. In matters of compassionate appointment, the primary consideration is to enable the family to tide over immediate financial crisis to save a family from complete ruin and destitution. Learned Law Officer cites an order of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Sima Banerjee (CA No.251 of 2017 decided on 10th January, 2017) in which compassionate appointment was refused in a case of death of husband in 2000 and several years slipping by after the death. The Supreme Court ruled that 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 14-05-2018 03:57:41 ::: compassionate appointment after huge passage of time would not be justified. Their Lordships further noticed that the death of the husband of the respondent in appeal ocurred on 26th November, 2009, and there is nothing to show that a vacancy was available within a period of three years from the date of death. The timeline of the three years in the instructions has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - R N Raina - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Jagdishbhai Mohanbhai Rana on 21 March, 2018

9.1 Even the reliance placed on the judgement in the case of Sima Banerjee (supra), by the learned Assistant Government Pleader is of no help. When admittedly the Page 15 of 19 C/LPA/1312/2017 ORDER petitioner was a minor when the father died and applied immediately on attaining majority and then when the authorities itself took three years to decide the question of his eligibility, to oust the case on the principles of delay defeating justice of compassionate appointment itself is a self defeating submission.
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document
1   2 Next