Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.40 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana (Sawant, J.) on 4 May, 1994
"In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930 : (1994) 27 ATC 537] , while emphasising that a compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of course or in posts above Classes III and IV, this Court had observed that: (SCC p. 140, para 2)
Director Of Education (Secondary) & Anr vs Pushpendra Kumar & Others on 13 May, 1998
In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education v. Pushpendra Kumar [(1998) 5 SCC 192 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1302 : (1998) 2 Pat LJR 181] . 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 are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief."
State Of Haryana & Ors vs Rani Devi & Anr on 15 July, 1996
InRani Devi case [(1996) 5 SCC 308 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1162 : JT (1996) 6 SC 646] it was held that the scheme regarding appointment on compassionate ground if extended to all types of casual or ad hoc employees including those who worked as apprentices cannot be justified on constitutional grounds.
Lic vs Asha Ramchandra Ambekar on 28 February, 1994
In LIC of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar [(1994) 2 SCC 718 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 737 : (1994) 27 ATC 174] it was pointed out that the High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplate such appointments. It was noted in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v.State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930 : (1994) 27 ATC 537] that as a rule, in public service appointments should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. But such appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased.
Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 March, 2011
The Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar (supra), spoke as follows:
V. Sivamurthy & Anr vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 12 August, 2008
27. A similar stand against impermissibility of appointments based on descent was taken at an earlier point in time in the case of V. Sivamurthy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported at (2008) 13 SCC 730, hereunder:
Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 28 August, 2000
30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported at 2000 (7) SCC 192 reiterated the purpose of a compassionate grounds appointments to tide over the sudden crisis resulting from the death of the earner in a family. However, the reservation of a vacancy to enable such person to attain majority was negatived by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by holding thus:
Smt. Sonal Sharma vs Union Of India on 21 July, 2009
"38. The purpose of providing such an employment has been to render the financial assistance to the family, which has lost the bread earner immediately after the death of the employee. If the application has been filed after expiry of 9½ years the element of immediate need stood evaporated and there was no occasion for the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for such a relief. The observation made by the learned Tribunal are in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and no exception can be taken out."