Lic vs Asha Ramchandra Ambekar on 28 February, 1994
{Paragraph 16 - LIC v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (supra) }.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.24 seconds)Smt. Phoolwati vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 December, 1990
The judgment in Smt. Sushma Gosain v. Union of India: AIR 1989
SC 1976 and followed in Smt. Phoolwati v. Union of India: AIR 1991 SC
469, wherein the Apex Court had directed to grant appointment on
compassionate ground as there was delay, are not applicable as in the
instant case the petitioner had filed the application before a wrong forum
and the matter was finally decided in 2012 after it was placed in 2010
before the Council which had enquired into the matter and had
subsequently placed it in accordance with law before
Director/Commissioner.
Balbir Kaur & Anr vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors on 5 May, 2000
The decision of the Supreme Court in
Balbir Kaur Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited : 2000(6) SCC 493, which
has been relied on in Nazrul Islam (supra) and in Swati Chatterjee (supra),
in FMA 874 of 2011 and in MAT 1520 of 2012, is not applicable as in a
subsequent judgment in SAIL V. Madhusudan Das: (2008) 15 SCC 560
while allowing the appeal the Apex Court referring to Balbir Kaur (supra)
held "It may be that such a provision was made as a measure of social
benefit but does not lay down a legal principle that the court shall pass an
order to that effect despite the fact that the conditions precedent therefor
have not been satisfied". (paragraph 17).
Dr. Nazrul Islam vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 25 June, 2008
The
unreported judgment in W.P 17607 (W) of 2012 is not applicable as it was
passed relying on Nazrul Islam (supra).
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana (Sawant, J.) on 4 May, 1994
Rather in SAIL (supra) reliance
was placed on the law laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of
Haryana : (1994) 4 SCC 138 wherein it was held " ...As a rule,
appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of
open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor
any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the
public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the
qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general
rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions
carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One
such exception is in favour of dependants of an employee dying in harness
and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In
such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration
the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would
not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to
provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who
may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting
compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the
sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much
less a post for post held by the deceased".
Director Of Education (Secondary) & Anr vs Pushpendra Kumar & Others on 13 May, 1998
In
Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar : (1998) 5 SCC
192 allowing the appeal it was held that "Care has, therefore, to be taken
that a provision for grant of compassionate employment, which is in the
nature of an exception to the general provisions, does not unduly interfere
with the right of other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek
employment against the post which would have been available to them, but
for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate
grounds of the dependant of a deceased employee" (paragraph 8).
Union Bank Of India And Ors vs M.T. Latheesh on 18 August, 2006
In Union Bank of India v.
M.T.Latheesh: (2006) 7 SCC 350 it was held that "It is settled law that the
principles regarding compassionate appointment that compassionate
appointment being an exception to the general rule the appointment has to be
exercised only in warranting situations and circumstances existing in
granting appointment and guiding factors should be financial condition of the
family. The respondent is not entitled to claim relief under the new Scheme
because the financial status of the family is much above the criterion fixed in
the new Scheme" (paragraph 37).
State Bank Of India & Anr vs Somvir Singh on 13 February, 2007
That the scheme has to be given primacy
came up for consideration in State Bank of India v. Somvir Singh: (2007 (4)
SCC 778 wherein allowing the appeal it was held "It is well settled that the
hardship of the dependant does not entitle one to compassionate
appointment dehors the scheme or the statutory provisions as the case may
be" (paragraph 13).
Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 14 March, 2008
It is, therefore, clear from the law laid down from the judgments of
the Apex Court that while considering an application for compassionate
appointment, Instructions or Schemes or rules framed for such
appointment have to be strictly construed and Courts and Tribunals have
to interpret the law as it is though harsh and cannot yeild to sympathetic
consideration as "appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of
recruitment". {Paragraph 11 - Mumtaz Yunus Mulani (supra) } and as
"....there may be other cases waiting already for appointment on
compassionate grounds, they may be even harder than that of the second
respondent."
M/S Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs Anil Badyakar & Ors on 15 May, 2009
Further in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. Anil Badyakar: 2009 (13) SCC
112 it was held that appointment on compassionate ground is not a vested
right which can be exercised at any time in future.