Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ram Lal Wadhwa & Anr vs The State Of Haryana & Ors on 5 May, 1972
7. The dependent or heir of the deceased can be appointed if eligible and if appointment is sought within a reasonable period. It has been further laid down in the said ruling that there could not be promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation when denial of question of compassionate appointment is on the principle of public policy. So, mere fact that the petitioner had made an application for appointment of Kama! Kant does not create estoppel against the respondents.
Abhishek Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 4 December, 2006
So far as authority in Abhishek Kumar's case is concerned, the said authority is distinguishable as in that case the applicant was not minor. In the rules dated 28.2.2003, no reservation for the minor for future employment has been made.
Neeraj Malik vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 18 August, 2006
Similar view was taken in the authority reported in case Neeraj Malik v. State of Haryana 2007(1) Recent Services Judgments 234.
Mahipal vs State Of Haryana on 26 February, 1980
In Mahipal's case (supra), a Division Bench of our High Court has dealt with the aspect of grant of compassionate appointment of minor dependent of the deceased employee. In the ruling, it has been held that no vested right has accrued in favour of dependent employee to have compassionate employment. The future vacancy cannot be reserved for minor Kamal Kant. Kamal Kant became major after two years of the death of his father. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over crisis due to sudden demise of an employee. The grant of compassionate appointment is to ignore the meritorious person who would otherwise get employment through direct recruitment. Before granting compassionate appointment, the employer is duty bound to examine the financial position of the family.
Jai Ram vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ... on 21 March, 2005
In authority reported in case Jai Ram v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and the State of Haryana , it has been held where the petitioner receive family pension and the family could survive for a period of about three years, in that case, no appointment on compassionate ground can be ordered. As per policy dated 28.2.2003, the petitioner is entitled to ex-gratia assistance of Rs. 2,50,000/-.
1