Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.30 seconds)
Balshyam Singh S/O A. Askaran vs Steel Authority Of India Limited Bhilai ... on 18 September, 2015 cites

Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana (Sawant, J.) on 4 May, 1994

vs.Rani Devi, AIR 1996 SC 2445; Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (Mrs.), (1994) IILLJ 173 SC, Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana, 1994 (3) SC 893, Smt. Sushma Gosain etc. Vs. UOI etc. (1990) ILLJ 169 SC, Commissioner of Public Instructions and others Vs.K.R. Vishwanath, (2005) IIILLJ 850 SC, it was held that normally an employment in government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of sole bread earner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the set back. Once it is proved that inspite of death of bread earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say8 goodbye to normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 2647 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Lic vs Asha Ramchandra Ambekar on 28 February, 1994

vs.Rani Devi, AIR 1996 SC 2445; Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (Mrs.), (1994) IILLJ 173 SC, Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana, 1994 (3) SC 893, Smt. Sushma Gosain etc. Vs. UOI etc. (1990) ILLJ 169 SC, Commissioner of Public Instructions and others Vs.K.R. Vishwanath, (2005) IIILLJ 850 SC, it was held that normally an employment in government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of sole bread earner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the set back. Once it is proved that inspite of death of bread earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say8 goodbye to normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 491 - S Mohan - Full Document

Union Of India vs Harnam Singh on 9 February, 1993

In the case of Union of India versus Harnam Singh (1993(2) S.C.C. Page 162), the Honble Apex Court has held that the Law of Limitation may operate harshly but it has to be applied with all its rigour and the Courts or Tribunals cannot come to aid of those who sleep over their rights and allow the period of Limitation to expire. As per Section 21 of the Act an Application under Section 19 of the Act can be filed within one year from the date of cause of action, which can be extended by another six months if any statutory appeal or revision is pending. Beyond that an application for condonation of delay as provided under Section 21(3) of the Act is to be filed with sufficient cause.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 448 - L M Sharma - Full Document

Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti vs Prabhakar Maruti Garvali & Anr on 10 November, 2006

6. In the case of death caused by accident the burden of proof rests upon the workman to prove that the accident arose out of employment as well as in the course of employment. But this does not mean that a workman who comes to court for relief must necessarily prove it by direct evidence. Although the onus of proving that the injury by accident arose both out of and in the course of employment rests upon the applicant these essentials may be inferred when the facts proved justify the inference. On the one hand the Commissioner must not surmise, conjecture or guess; on the other hand, he may draw an inference from the proved facts so long as it is a legitimate inference. It is of course impossible to lay down any rule as to the degree of proof which is sufficient to justify an inference being drawn, but the evidence must be such as would induce a reasonable man to draw it. The Honble Apex Court followed the said principle in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali, (2007) 11 SCC 668. It was held that:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 176 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next