Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.26 seconds)Section 21 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana (Sawant, J.) on 4 May, 1994
In the matter of "Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of
Haryana", [1994(4) SCC 138], Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed that "The whole object of granting compassionate
employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden
(Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 10:12:57 PM)
(4 of 7) [CW-2445/2019]
crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post
much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further,
mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family
to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public
authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the
family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that but for
the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet
the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the
family." The Hon'ble Court has further observed that "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 J&K & Others vs Sajad Ahmed Mir on 17 July, 2006
In "State of J&K vs. Sajjad Ahmed Mir", 2006(5) SCC, 766,
the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :
Section 19 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Shambhu Puri vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 31 October, 2017
10. Relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Jagdish Prasad's case, a Division Bench of this Court in
'Shambhu Puri Vs. State', 2003 WLC (Raj.) 404, opined as under :
1