Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.20 seconds)
Chairman And Managing Director, ... vs Allahabad Bank Staff Association, Thru ... on 5 September, 2014 cites

State Bank Of India & Anr vs Raj Kumar on 8 February, 2010

In State Bank of India and another Vs. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC-661, the Apex Court has clarified this position that when a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking appointment under that scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. It is not disputed that date of death of deceased employees in the present case is 14.8.2003 and 19.10.2002 i.e. before 31.7.2004 and hence as per the aforesaid highlighted provision of the new scheme coupled with the ratio laid in the aforesaid case, claim of the respondent is not to be subjected to the new scheme rather their case is saved to be dealt with under the earlier scheme providing for compassionate appointment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 861 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Anu Nagpal vs State Of Haryana & Others --Respondents on 1 April, 2013

According to Sri H.R. Mishra, counsel for the appellant, there is no application of mind by the writ Court on the aspect that whether to continue or discontinue with the appointment on compassionate ground, is a policy decision of the Bank and Court ought not to have interfered with the matter unless decision of the Board of Directors was shown to be arbitrary. It is argued that the Bank scheme does not vest any right on the family members/dependant of the deceased employee to appointment in services of the Bank in view of object behind such compassionate scheme which is to provide succor to the family of deceased employee and make provision for tiding over the immediate financial crisis which occurs due to death of bread earner of the family. Counsel for the appellant in support of his contention, has placed objectives of the scheme and submitted that the impugned judgment is not in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of U.K. Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others ( JT 1994(3) SC-525) and on that basis objectives of the bank were framed, therefore, offer of compensation under the new scheme was valid as approval on the respondents' application had not attained finality. It is submitted that competent authority to grant sanction for compassionate appointment under prevalent scheme vide clause 6 was the Chairman and Managing Director or General Manager as the case may be and no such sanction or approval was ever granted by the aforesaid competent authority in the matter.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - T S Dhindsa - Full Document
1