Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.27 seconds)The Chief Commissioner Central Excise & ... vs Prabhat Singh & Another on 9 August, 2011
(v) The Chief Commissioner Vs. Prabhat Singh reported in 2012 (1) ALJ 330
Union Of India Thru Sec, Ministry Of ... vs Phool Chand Pal And Another on 12 May, 2011
(vi) Union of India Vs. Phool Chan Pal reported in 2011 (6) ADJ 917
The Govt. Of India vs P. Venkatesh on 1 March, 2019
19. The judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner are distinguishable on their own facts and even otherwise this Court is bound by the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Venkatesh (supra) wherein the delay in preferring an application for claiming compassionate appointment has been categorically held to make a person ineligible for such appointment.
Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 28 January, 2014
14. Likewise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2000) 7 SCC 192 has held as under:-
Director Of Education (Secondary) & Anr vs Pushpendra Kumar & Others on 13 May, 1998
"3...........This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood: In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education and Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar and Ors. (Supra). It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2.6.1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there is some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief."
State Of J&K & Others vs Sajad Ahmed Mir on 17 July, 2006
" 11.........The father of the applicant who was in service, died in harness in March, 1987 and for the first time, the application was made by the applicant after more than four years i.e. in September, 1991. The family thus survived for more than four years after the death of the applicant's father. Even at that time, the applicant, under the relevant guidelines, could not have been appointed and hence relaxation was prayed. It is no doubt true that the case of the applicant was favourably considered by the Departments and recommendation was made, but it is also a fact which has come on record that in March, 1996, a decision was taken by the authorities not to give appointment to the applicant on compassionate ground. From the affidavit in reply filed by the authorities in the High Court as also from the finding of the learned single Judge, it is clear that the applicant had knowledge about rejection of his application in 1996 itself. Nothing was done by the applicant against the said decision. Considerable period elapsed and only in 1999, when there was some inter- Departmental communication and Administrative Officer informed the Chief Engineer vide a letter dated 8th June, 1999 that the applicant could not be appointed on compassionate ground that the applicant woke up and filed a writ petition in the High Court. It is also pertinent to note that the letter of 1999 itself recites that the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment was considered and the prayer had already been turned down by the Administrative Department and the said fact had been communicated to the office of the Chief Engineer. A copy of the said letter was also annexed to the letter of 1999. In our opinion, therefore, the learned single Judge was right in dismissing the petition on the ground of delay and laches by holding that the applicant had not done anything for a considerable period after March, 1996 when his claim was rejected even though he was informed about the decision and was very much aware of it. The Division Bench, in our view, was not justified in setting aside the said order and in directing the authorities to consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment and by giving directions to give other benefits.
Smt. Sushma Gosain And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 25 August, 1989
In the case of Sushma Gosain Vs. Union of India reported in (1989) 4 SCC 468, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in the claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should be no delay inasmuch as the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the breadwinner in the family.
Sharad Kumar Tyagi vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 18 January, 1989
4. Be that as it may, the petitioner attained majority in the year 2004 and thereafter for the very first time moved an application on 10.01.2006 for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment. Copy of application dated 10.01.2006 is annexure 4 to the writ petition. The said application of the petitioner was rejected on 27.01.2006, copy of which has been filed as annexure 1 to the writ petition. Instead of challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred an application for review of the order dated 27.01.2006 on the ground of it being non speaking which resulted into a second rejection order dated 07.08.2009, a copy of which has been filed as annexure 2 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 358 (SS) of 2010 Inre; Sharad Kumar Vs. State of U.P and Ors which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 27.01.2010 with the direction to the respondent no. 2 to consider the petitioner's representation for compassionate appointment and decide the same within a specified time. Incidentally, the said judgment has not been brought on record in the present petition. The judgment of this Court dated 27.01.2010 thereafter resulted in the respondents passing the third rejection order dated 27.03.2010, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the writ petition. More than two years later, the petitioner preferred the present petition on 28.05.2012 challenging the three rejection orders dated 27.01.2006, 07.08.2009 and 27.03.2010, copies of which are annexures 1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition.