Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 60 (0.32 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Jagdish Prasad vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 13 November, 1995
32. The same view has been reiterated in Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301; State of Bihar v. Samsuz Zoha, AIR 1996 SC 1961; Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Dinesh Kumar, (1996) 4 SCC 560 and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. A. Radhika Thirumalai, (1996) 6 SCC 394. It has categorically been held that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of course not being a vested right.
Smt. Sushma Gosain And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 25 August, 1989
It was not disputed that the public undertaking in question has framed the rules for compassionate appointment, but such rules are subject to the availability of the vacancy. It is also observed that when the respondent applied for compassionate appointment, there was no vacancy and there was a ban on fresh recruitment, as there was a ban on fresh recruitment as there was a surplus labour the work force was being reduced and the incentives were offered for voluntary retirement. In view of the above position, the Supreme Court has held that the order of the High Court to consider the candidature of the respondent and to give her an appointment by creating a supernumerary post is improper. The Supreme Court has distinguished its earlier decision in Susma Gosai v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468, and has observed that when there is a ban on recruitment and no vacancy was available, it was not proper for the High Court to direct the authorities to give the respondent appointment by creating a supernumerary post in view of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. A. Radhika Thirumalai, (1996) 6 SCC 394 : AIR 1997 SC 123.
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd vs Smt. A. Radhika Thirumalai on 9 October, 1996
It was not disputed that the public undertaking in question has framed the rules for compassionate appointment, but such rules are subject to the availability of the vacancy. It is also observed that when the respondent applied for compassionate appointment, there was no vacancy and there was a ban on fresh recruitment, as there was a ban on fresh recruitment as there was a surplus labour the work force was being reduced and the incentives were offered for voluntary retirement. In view of the above position, the Supreme Court has held that the order of the High Court to consider the candidature of the respondent and to give her an appointment by creating a supernumerary post is improper. The Supreme Court has distinguished its earlier decision in Susma Gosai v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468, and has observed that when there is a ban on recruitment and no vacancy was available, it was not proper for the High Court to direct the authorities to give the respondent appointment by creating a supernumerary post in view of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. A. Radhika Thirumalai, (1996) 6 SCC 394 : AIR 1997 SC 123.
The State Of Bihar & Ors. Etc vs Samsuz Zoha Etc on 22 March, 1996
32. The same view has been reiterated in Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301; State of Bihar v. Samsuz Zoha, AIR 1996 SC 1961; Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Dinesh Kumar, (1996) 4 SCC 560 and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. A. Radhika Thirumalai, (1996) 6 SCC 394. It has categorically been held that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of course not being a vested right.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation vs Shri Dinesh Kumar on 7 May, 1996
32. The same view has been reiterated in Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301; State of Bihar v. Samsuz Zoha, AIR 1996 SC 1961; Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Dinesh Kumar, (1996) 4 SCC 560 and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. A. Radhika Thirumalai, (1996) 6 SCC 394. It has categorically been held that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of course not being a vested right.
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana (Sawant, J.) on 4 May, 1994
34. Similarly, in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar and Anr., (1996) 8 SCC 23, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated and followed the law laid down in Umesh Nagpal's case (supra) and directed the applicants involved therein to apply for employment on compassionate ground "by giving full details of the family circumstances and the economic conditions".
Director Of Education (Secondary) & Anr vs Pushpendra Kumar & Others on 13 May, 1998
In Director of Education (Secondary) and Anr. v. Pashpendra Kumar and Ors., 1998 (3) AWC 1772 (SC) : (1998) 5 SCC 192, the Supreme Court has observed as under :