Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.95 seconds)
N.C. Santhosh vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2020 cites

Canara Bank & Anr vs M. Mahesh Kumar on 15 May, 2015

Therefore, notwithstanding the strong reliance placed by the appellants counsel on Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) as also the opinion of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Uday Krishna Naik vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.7, it can not be said that the appellants claim should be considered under the unamended provisions of the Rules prevailing on the date of death of the Government employee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 709 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Sbi General Insurance Co Ltd vs Raj Kumar & Ors on 23 March, 2018

17. A two judges bench headed by Justice Uday U. Lalit noticed the Supreme Court’s view in SBI vs. Raj Kumar (supra) and MCB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh (supra) on one side and the contrary view in Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) and felt the necessity of resolution of the conflicting question on whether the norms applicable on the date of death or on the date of consideration of application should apply.
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 19 - J R Midha - Full Document

Uday Krishna Naik vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 16 April, 1999

Therefore, notwithstanding the strong reliance placed by the appellants counsel on Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) as also the opinion of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Uday Krishna Naik vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.7, it can not be said that the appellants claim should be considered under the unamended provisions of the Rules prevailing on the date of death of the Government employee.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 39 - T S Thakur - Full Document

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Shashi Kumar on 16 January, 2019

In the most recent judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. vs. Shashi Kumar8 the earlier decisions governing the principles of compassionate appointment were discussed and analysed. Speaking for the bench, Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud reiterated that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles in accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. The Dependent of a deceased government employee are made eligible by virtue of the policy on compassionate appointment and they must fulfill the norms laid down by the State’s policy.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 482 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Commissioner Of Public Instructions & ... vs K.R. Vishwanath on 30 August, 2005

12. The provision of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 was considered in Commissioner of Public Instructions and Others vs K.R. Vishwanath 1. Speaking for the division bench, Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat noted that the effect of the amended second proviso is that, unless the application is pending at the time of commencement of the Amendment Rules, the same can have no bearing on the claim for compassionate appointment. Thus, belated application filed by the dependant on attaining majority beyond one year from the date of death of the government employee would not be a valid application, consistent with the provisions of the Rules.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 102 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1