Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.21 seconds)

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

5. An aspect examined by this judgment [Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 539] is as to whether a claim for compassionate employment under a scheme of a particular year could be decided based on a subsequent scheme that came into force much after the claim. The answer to this has been emphatically Patna High Court CWJC No.13924 of 2016 dt.16-02-2026 4/5 in the negative. It has also been observed that the grant of family pension and payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance. The crucial aspect is to turn to the scheme itself to consider as to what are the provisions made in the scheme for such compassionate appointment."
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 709 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Indian Bank vs Promila . on 8 January, 2020

"3. There has been some confusion as to the scheme applicable and, thus, this Court directed [Indian Bank v. Promila, (2020) 2 SCC 735] the scheme prevalent, on the date of the death, to be Patna High Court CWJC No.13924 of 2016 dt.16-02-2026 3/5 placed before this Court for consideration, as the High Court [Promila v. Indian Bank, 2008 SCC OnLine P & H 2267] appears to have dealt with a scheme which was of a subsequent date.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 169 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Promila And Another vs Indian Bank And Others on 11 August, 2008

"3. There has been some confusion as to the scheme applicable and, thus, this Court directed [Indian Bank v. Promila, (2020) 2 SCC 735] the scheme prevalent, on the date of the death, to be Patna High Court CWJC No.13924 of 2016 dt.16-02-2026 3/5 placed before this Court for consideration, as the High Court [Promila v. Indian Bank, 2008 SCC OnLine P & H 2267] appears to have dealt with a scheme which was of a subsequent date.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - A K Goel - Full Document
1