Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)The Right to Information Act, 2005
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 19 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana (Sawant, J.) on 4 May, 1994
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar
Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138, held that "The whole
object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family
to tide over the sudden crisis."
Director Of Education (Secondary) & Anr vs Pushpendra Kumar & Others on 13 May, 1998
Further in the case of Director of Education (Secondary) v.
Pushpendra Kumar (1998) 5 SCC 192, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that 'once a person is found eligible and is appointed on
compassionate grounds, he must be treated fairly and not
discriminated against'.
Balbir Kaur & Anr vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors on 5 May, 2000
Further in the case of Balbir Kaur v. Steel Authority of India
Ltd. (2000) 6 SCC 493, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 'the
benefit of compassionate appointment should be meaningful and not
illusory'.
D.K. Yadav vs J.M.A. Industries Ltd on 7 May, 1993
11. Be as it may, we do not intend to delve in this at this stage. Reason is
obvious that if any cheating had been committed by the applicant
while undergoing the said retention tests, due process ought to have
been followed by the respondents, i.e., enquiry, show cause, record of
proceedings in consonance with the principle of natural justice (audi
alteram partem), which admittedly the respondents have not chosen.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A.
Industries Ltd. (1993) 3 SCC 259, an employee cannot be penalized
without being given an opportunity to be heard.
Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. Etc on 10 July, 1985
11.2 In the case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
(1985) 3 SCC 545, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the
right to livelihood is a component of the right to life. The
applicant's who being a compassionate appointee, his
livelihood and career progression are at stake after having
completed 3 years of service. Denying him regularization
without alternate placement violates Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1