Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)The Govt. Of India vs P. Venkatesh on 1 March, 2019
9. In the instant case, a glaring fact that cannot be ignored is
the delay in pursuing the matter both at the level of the respondents
Department and also in approaching this Court. As held in the case of
Government of India & Anr. vs. P. Venkatesh (supra) which has also
relied on the judgment of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana
reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, the essence of claim lies in immediacy
of need. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced at Para- 9 &
State Of J&K & Others vs Sajad Ahmed Mir on 17 July, 2006
In the case of State of J&K & Ors. vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir (supra) the
Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing delay and laches and that
such appointments are an exception to the general rule in Para 11 & 12
held as follows:-
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana (Sawant, J.) on 4 May, 1994
10.Bearing in mind the above principles, this Court
held: (Umesh Kumar case, SCC pp. 141-42, para 6)
"6.For these very reasons, the compassionate
employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a
reasonable period which must be specified in the rules.
The consideration for such employment is not a vested
right which can be exercised at any time in future. The
object being to enable the family to get over the financial
crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole
breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be
claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after
the crisis is over."
State Of Haryana & Ors vs Rani Devi & Anr on 15 July, 1996
In the State of Haryana v. Rani Devi, it was held that
the claim of the applicant for appointment on
compassionate ground is based on the premise that he
was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly this
claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14
or 16 of the Constitution. However, such claim is
considered reasonable as also allowable on the basis of
sudden crisis occurring in the family of the employee
who had served the State and died while in service. That
is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules,
regulations or to issue such administrative instructions
which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16.
Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be
claimed as a matter of right."
State Bank Of India & Anr vs Somvir Singh on 13 February, 2007
4. Another contention, as submitted by the learned counsel
is that the respondents have not complied with the prescribed Scheme
for consideration of appointment which has resulted in the deprivation
of the petitioner of gainful employment. Learned counsel submits that
as per the Scheme which is contained in the Office Memorandum dated
09.10.1998 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances &
Pension (Department Personnel & Training), it is incumbent as
provided in Para-12 (b) that immediately after the death of the
Page 2 of 8
employee, the Welfare Officer should have met the family of the
deceased to advise and assist them in getting compassionate ground
and also that Para-12 (c) provides that application for compassionate
appointment should be considered by a Committee of Officers
consisting of 3(three) Members. Learned counsel submits that this was
not adhered to and that no Welfare Officer had come to meet the family
after the demise of the deceased employee and that also the
Committees set up were arbitrary with as many as 6(six) Members
being present. He also contended that the Committee did not sit as
prescribed, but it seems on the contrary, the report was made only on a
yearly basis. For all these lapses, it is contended by the learned counsel
that the petitioner had been illegally deprived of his legitimate claim
for compassionate appointment and that the non-adherence to the
Scheme has caused violation of the fundamental rights of the
petitioner. Learned counsel in furtherance to this contention, has
placed reliance on the judgment in the case of State Bank of India &
Anr. vs. Somvir Singh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 778 to establish the
point that compassionate appointment can only be granted by the way
of Scheme which he maintains has been violated. Reliance also has
been placed on the judgment rendered in the case of Mohan Mahto v.
M/s Central Coal Fields Ltd. & Ors. reported 2007 (9) SBR 449
wherein it has been held that the grant of appointment on
compassionate ground is an exception of Article 16 (1) of the
Constitution of India. Learned counsel lastly prays that a mandamus be
issued directing the respondents to grant appointment to the petitioner
Page 3 of 8
on compassionate ground in view of the facts and circumstances as put
forth.
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1