Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 15 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Director Of Education (Secondary) & Anr vs Pushpendra Kumar & Others on 13 May, 1998
In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education v. Pushpendra Kumar [(1998) 5 SCC 192 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1302 : (1998) 2 Pat LJR 181] . It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2-6-1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief."
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 28 August, 2000
24. The Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Others8 reiterated the purpose of compassionate ground appointments to tide over the sudden crisis resulting from the death of the earner in a family. While in the same breath the reservation of a vacancy to enable such person to attain majority was negatived by the Supreme Court by holding thus:
Smt. Sonal Gupta And Another vs United India Insurance Co. Thru Divl. ... on 8 April, 2022
"38. The purpose of providing such an employment has been to render the financial assistance to the family, which has lost the bread earner immediately after the death of the employee. If the application has been filed after expiry of 9½ years the element of immediate need stood evaporated and there was no occasion for the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for such a relief. The observation made by the learned Tribunal are in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and no exception can be taken out."
Shiv Kumar Dubey vs State Of U.P. And Others on 6 February, 2014
26. The need for strict compliance of Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 and consequences of delay in filing applications for appointment under Dying-in-harness Rules and allied issues were posed to a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P.10 For ease of reference, the relevant parts of Shiv Kumar Dubey (supra) are reproduced hereunder:
Umesh Kumar Tripathi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secretary ... on 30 October, 2013
30. Reliance placed on the judgement rendered by this Court in Umesh Kumar v. State of U.P.11 is misconceived. The judgement is distinguishable on facts.
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana (Sawant, J.) on 4 May, 1994
In the case of Umesh Kumar (supra) this Court has specifically observed that the respondents had not taken a stand that more than five years had elapsed from the date of death of his father. In the instant case the petitioner has been non suited on the solely footing that there was a delay of more than five years in making the application for appointment and that the delay has not been condoned by the competent authority.