Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.29 seconds)
Mamata Mohanty vs Chairman, Coal India Limited And Ors. on 18 April, 2003 cites

Smt. Sushma Gosain And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 25 August, 1989

4. It is for these reasons that we have not been in a position to appreciate judgments of some of the High Courts which have justified and even directed compassionate employment either as a matter of course or in posts above Classes III and IV. We are also dismayed to find that the decision of the Court in Sushma Gosain v. Union of India has been misinterpreted to the point of distortion. The decision does not justify compassionate employment either as a matter of course or in employment in posts above Classes 111 and IV. In the present case, the High Court has rightly pointed out that the State Government's instructions in question did not justify compassionate employment in Class II posts. However, it appears from the judgment that the State Government had made at least one exception and provided compassionate employment in Class II post on the specious ground that the person concerned had technical qualifications such as M.B.B.S., B.E., B.Tech. etc. Such exception, as pointed out above, is illegal, since it is contrary to the object of making exception to the general rule. The only ground which can justify compassionate employment is the penurious condition of the deceased's family. Neither the qualifications' of his dependant nor the post which he held is relevant..."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 1022 - K J Shetty - Full Document

Director Of Education (Secondary) & Anr vs Pushpendra Kumar & Others on 13 May, 1998

In view of the aforesaid clear Jaw laid down by the Supreme Court that the only object of compassionate appointment is to give minimum financial relief to the family of the deceased employee and such object is mitigaged by making such compassionate appointment in Class-Ill and Class-IV posts and that, posts above Class-Ill and Class-IV cannot be offered for such compassionate appointment on the ground that the applicant had higher qualification, we cannot possibly hold that The petitioner was entitled to be appointed in an Executive post or any other post commensurate with her qualification of M.A. and Ph. D. in Psychology.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1064 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

State Of Punjab & Ors vs Ram Lubhaya Bagga Etc. Etc on 26 February, 1998

5. Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, learned counsel for the opp. parties 1, 3 and 4, on the other hand, submitted that in the circular dated 8.4.1995 of C.I.L. laying down the guidelines on the scheme for monetary cash compensation in lieu of employment to female dependents of Executives, it is clearly stated that in case of death of an Executive in harness, the female dependent of an Executive will be paid compensation of Rs. 3000/- per month. According to Mr. Mohanty, since monetary compensation has been quantified at Rs. 3000/-per month, the petitioner was not entitled to 85% of the E-1 Grade gross emoluments as submitted by Mr. Kar. He further submitted that subsequently, in November, 1999 the Board of Directors of C.I.L. revised the aforesaid monetary compensation for a female dependent of an Executive to Rs. 4500/- per month and accordingly, the petitioner was entitled to Rs. 4500/- per month and not at the rate of 85% of the revised pay in E-l scale. Mr. Mohanty vehemently argued that the decisions of the Board of Directors, C.I.L. relating to cash compensation in lieu of employment are policy decisions and cannot be interfered with by the Court in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., AIR 1998 SC 1703 wherein the Supreme Court held that when a Government forms its policy, it is based on number of circumstances on facts, law including constraints based on its resources and the Court would dissuade itself from entering into the realm which belongs to the executive. The aforesaid observations were made by the Supreme Court in the context of claim for medical allowance. In reply to the contention of Mr. Kar that the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment in a post commensurate with the educational qualification of the petitioner, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the office memorandum dated 13.3.1981 of the C.I.L. provides that employment of dependents would be in non-executive post according to job requirement and not in executive post and, therefore, the petitioner could not be considered for appointment to an Executive Post.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 490 - Full Document

Lic vs Asha Ramchandra Ambekar on 28 February, 1994

Mr. Mohanty cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar and Anr., AIR 1994 SC 2148 in which it was held that Court cannot direct compassionate appointment to be made contrary to statutory instructions and argued that in the present case also, the Court cannot direct compassionate appointment contrary to the instructions in the said office memorandum dated 13.3.1981 of C.I.L. Mr. Mohanty submitted that in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 138 the Supreme Court further held that posts in Class-Ill and Class-IV which are the lowest posts alone can be offered on compassionate appointment and such provision for compassionate appointment in the lowest post would be justifiable and valid and would not be discriminatory but no other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose of such compassionate appointment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 491 - S Mohan - Full Document
1