Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 60 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Food Corporation Of India & Another vs Ram Kesh Yadav & Another on 27 February, 2007

V. Sivamurthy & Anr vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 12 August, 2008

16. There are of course safeguards to be taken to ensure the scheme is not misused. One is to ensure that mere medical unfitness to continue in a post is not treated as medical invalidation for purposes of compassionate appointment. A government servant should totally cease to be employable and become a burden on his family, to warrant compassionate appointment to a member of his family. Another is barring compassionate appointments to dependants of an employee who seeks voluntary retirement on medical grounds on the verge of superannuation. This Court observed in Ram Kesh Yadav (supra) as follows :
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 184 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Food Corporation Of India & Ors vs Raja Ram on 17 April, 2009

8 It has been emphasised that the policy, as was originally promulgated on 2nd February, 1977, provided that a dependent, being a son, daughter, widow who had not re-married, and even a close relative, who gives an assurance to look after the family and whose family is left in indigent circumstances needing immediate assistance, there being no other earning member in the family, would be given appointment without following the formalities of being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, subject to the availability of the vacancy, and further subject to the fact that he or she is duly qualified for the post. 9 It was submitted in the instant case, having regard to the submissions made in paragraph 3 of the affidavit affirmed by Nankoo Ram, the criteria as indicated hereinabove, were not fulfilled, inasmuch as, the respondent was not living with the workman concerned and he was neither dependent on him. Apart from the above, it was also indicated in the said paragraph that he was living separately with his wife and children and he was looking after them. The only reason for asking that he be appointed is the assurance given that in case he was given appointment, he would look after the applicant worker, who was retiring on medical grounds. 10 On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that the essence of compassionate appointments was whether the family was left in indigent circumstances needing immediate assistance, and there was nothing on record to 5 indicate that they were not, and in such circumstances, the circular had been correctly interpreted by the learned Single Judge and he had very rightly directed that appointment be given to the respondent on compassionate grounds. 11 Learned counsel also relied on a decision of this Court in Food Corporation of India & Anr. Vs. Ram Kesh Yadav & Anr., [2007(9)SCC 531], where in a similar situation, this Court had directed that appointment be given on account of the fact that the workman had expressed his desire to go on retirement on medical grounds, if his son would be provided an employment in his place. 12 This Court held that the offer being conditional, it was not open to the Food Corporation of India to accept one part of the offer and to reject the other. 13 Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the Division Bench, which endorses the order of the learned Single Judge, on the ground that the family of the concerned worker, namely, his wife, had predeceased him and his daughter was married and was no longer dependant on him. Furthermore, the son, who is the respondent herein, was living separately and the affidavit affirmed by the worker indicates that he was living separately with his nuclear family and looking after them. Furthermore, the workman having died on 17th February, 2001, while his 6 application was being processed, the necessity of such appointment ceased to exist after his death as there was no other family member available who was dependant on him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Ravindra S/O Bisen Goswami And Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 28 June, 2007

9. The other judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Food Corporation of India and Anr. v. Ram Kesh Yadav and Anr. (cited supra), again explains the position in relation to compassionate employment on same lines and in paragraph 8, it has been observed that even if all conditions as per guidelines are fulfilled, there is no right to claim appointment. In paragraph 7, the stipulation of age as 55 with further condition that employee must seek voluntary retirement on medical ground before completing said age is considered in this judgment and the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed it, but for such condition there would be tendency on the part of employees nearing the age of superannuation to take advantage of the scheme to seek voluntary retirement on medical ground at fag end of their service and thereby virtually create employment by succession. It has been noticed that it was not possible for Court to relax such a condition and whenever the cut off date or age is prescribed, it is bound to create hardship in marginal cases, but that cannot be the ground to hold the provision as directory and not mandatory.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Mewari vs Union Of India on 5 December, 2023

In view of the ratio of the judgment in Ram Kesh Yadav (supra) such action is not justified. It is not the case of the Respondent’s Board that it had informed the appellant that the request of conditional voluntary retirement (as made) was contrary to the Circular, and that the Board was not willing to consider the same. It is also not the case of the Respondent’s Board that it had informed the Appellant that on account of the existing norms, compassionate appointment to his son cannot be granted, and that therefore he has to apply unconditionally for voluntary retirement. In our view, when a request for voluntary retirement has been made subject to the condition stipulated in the letter to grant the compassionate appointment to his son, it ought to be accepted by the Board compositely, i.e., accepting both the requests, or rejected in toto.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - J K Maheshwari - Full Document

Lodha Developers Limited vs State Of Maharashtra And 4 Ors on 7 January, 2020

27. Ms. Bhagalia, on the other hand, strenuously urged that the Petitioner could not back away from their contractual obligation. For this purpose, she relied on the judgment of Food Corporation of India (supra). In that case, an employee of Food Corporation of India (for short, 'FCI') had made an application for conditional voluntary retirement on medical grounds, subject to 19 / 23 20 wp-2737-15.odt appointment of his son in his place. The application specifically stated that he desired to go on retirement on medical ground if his son was provided employment in his place. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once the FCI unconditionally accepted the offer, it could not avoid performance of the condition subject to which the offer was made particularly when nothing prevented FCI from rejecting the application of the employee outright or refusing to accept the condition.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S V Kotwal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next