Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 756 (2.47 seconds)
Documents citing Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 March, 2011

Vadodara Municipal Corporation vs Vadodara Municipal Corporation Kamdar ... on 21 June, 2024

It also can be noticed that the decision in (01) SBI v Jaspal Kaur (2007) 9 SCC 571, (02) SBI v. Raj Kumar 2010 (11) SCC 661, (03) Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 209 and (04) Canara Bank and another v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412, respectively were rendered by coordinate Bench of the Supreme Court constituting equal strength.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - B D Karia - Full Document

S.Jeyakumari vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 August, 2022

28. It is well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment and an exception to general rule. The appointment to a service in a State can be made only in accordance with Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. It is also now settled that the dependants of the employees who died in harness do not have any right to employment except by way of concession, that is under the service rules or by a separate scheme to enable the family of the deceased to get over financial crisis and destination. The claim of appointment on compassionate basis is therefore traceable only to the service rule permitting such appointment on compassionate basis or a scheme framed for this purpose. In none of the cases before us the scheme or the Government orders has been challenged. The 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.962 of 2022 appointments are therefore to be made strictly in accordance with the same. (Refer Canara Bank Vs. M.Mahesh Kumar (2015) 7 SCC 412) and Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 209).
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S S Sundar - Full Document

Periyaraj vs State Rep.By on 5 September, 2023

28. It is well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment and an exception to general rule. The appointment to a service in a State can be made only in accordance with Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. It is also now settled that the dependants of the employees who died in harness do not have any right to employment except by way of concession, _______________ Page 18 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD) No.1435 of 2023 that is under the service rules or by a separate scheme to enable the family of the deceased to get over financial crisis and destination. The claim of appointment on compassionate basis is therefore traceable only to the service rule permitting such appointment on compassionate basis or a scheme framed for this purpose. In none of the cases before us the scheme or the Government orders has been challenged. The appointments are therefore to be made strictly in accordance with the same. (Refer Canara Bank Vs. M.Mahesh Kumar (2015) 7 SCC 412) and Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 209).
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - S S Sundar - Full Document

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

28. It is well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a 18/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.682 of 2022 source of recruitment and an exception to general rule. The appointment to a service in a State can be made only in accordance with Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. It is also now settled that the dependants of the employees who died in harness do not have any right to employment except by way of concession, that is under the service rules or by a separate scheme to enable the family of the deceased to get over financial crisis and destination. The claim of appointment on compassionate basis is therefore traceable only to the service rule permitting such appointment on compassionate basis or a scheme framed for this purpose. In none of the cases before us the scheme or the Government orders has been challenged. The appointments are therefore to be made strictly in accordance with the same. (Refer Canara Bank Vs. M.Mahesh Kumar (2015) 7 SCC 412) and Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 209).
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 11 - S Srimathy - Full Document

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation vs S.Azarutheen on 3 August, 2022

28. It is well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment and an exception to general rule. The appointment to a service in a State can be made only in accordance with Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. It is also now settled that the dependants of the employees who died in harness do not have any right to employment except by way of concession, that is under the service rules or by a separate scheme to enable the family of the deceased to get over financial crisis and destination. The claim of appointment on compassionate basis is therefore traceable only to the service rule permitting such appointment on compassionate basis or a scheme framed for this purpose. In none of the cases before us the scheme or the Government orders has been challenged. The appointments are therefore to be made strictly in accordance with the same. (Refer Canara Bank Vs. M.Mahesh Kumar (2015) 7 SCC 412) and Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P.Babyshalini vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 11 March, 2022

28. It is well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment and an exception to general rule. The appointment to a service in a State can be made only in accordance with Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. It is also now settled that the dependants of the employees who died in harness do not have any right to employment except by way of concession, that is under the service rules or by a separate scheme to enable the family of the deceased to get over financial crisis and destination. The claim of appointment on compassionate basis is therefore traceable only to the service rule permitting such appointment on compassionate basis or a scheme framed for this purpose. In none of the cases before us the scheme or the Government orders has been challenged. The appointments are therefore to be made strictly in accordance with the same. (Refer Canara Bank Vs. M.Mahesh Kumar (2015) 7 SCC 412) and Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 209).
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 10 - S Srimathy - Full Document

S. Ganesh vs The Chief Security Commissioner on 11 February, 2015

7. From the records, it is seen that the appellant's father was suffering from chronic kidney failure and the Competent Medical Board has declared him medically unfit for all kinds of work. In view of this fact, the conclusion of the learned Judge that the appellant's father forced the respondents to medically invalidate him in order to get an appointment to the appellant on compassionate ground is without any basis. Even the respondents did not plead that the appellant and his father misused the provisions to get compassionate appointment to the appellant. Therefore, the judgment reported in 2011(4) SCC 209 (Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India and others) referred to by learned Judge is not applicable to the facts of this case. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents in this appeal are also not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - V M Velumani - Full Document

K.Ramakrishnan vs The Director Of Elementary Education

7.We have no second opinion that the family of a Government servant who died in harness should be given succor to tide over the unexpected crises. So, employment out of turn, should be provided on compassionate ground. However, such appointment should be within the following parameters of the directions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India and others (cited supra):-
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Chairman And Managing Director vs M.Suganya on 3 August, 2022

26. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader would state that the law on compassionate appointment is well settled and the scheme applicable when the date of the death of the employee must be followed. He would contend that now the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a consistent view that the family members of the deceased employee should not be permitted to move applications for appointment on compassionate basis beyond the period fixed under the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/36 W.A(MD)No.2 of 2020 scheme. The Government Pleader would rely on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushma Gosain Vs. Union of India [1989 (4) SCC 468], Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana [1994 (4) SCC 138], National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Vs. Nanak Chand [2004 (12) SCC 487], Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India [2011 (4) SCC 209] and State of Gujarat Vs. Arvindkumar T.Tiwari [2012 (9) SCC 545], to substantiate his contentions.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next