Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.26 seconds)
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Shashi Kumar on 16 January, 2019 cites

State Bank Of India & Anr vs Somvir Singh on 13 February, 2007

The decision in State Bank of India Vs. Somvir Singh7 has noticed the scheme for appointment of dependants of 6 (2004) 7 SCC 265 7 (2007) 4 SCC 778 22 deceased employees on compassionate grounds framed by the State Bank of India. The Court expressly held that the authorities were not in error in taking account of the terminal benefits, investments and the monthly family income including the family pension paid by the Bank. The view of this Court finds expression in the following extract:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 739 - B S Reddy - Full Document

Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 14 March, 2008

The judgment of a Bench of two-Judges in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Vs. State of Maharashtra8 has adopted the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. The financial position of the family would need to be evaluated on the basis of the provisions contained in the Scheme.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 295 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Mrgyan Prakash Verma vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 24 August, 2015

For these reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the High Court was not justified, based on the decision in Govind Prakash Verma (supra) in issuing a direction to the State to act in a manner contrary to the express terms of the Scheme which require that the family pension received by the dependants of the deceased employee be taken into account.
Central Information Commission Cites 1 - Cited by 163 - Full Document

State Bank Of India & Ors. .... ... vs Aspal Kaur ...Respondent(S) on 1 February, 2007

Dealing with the applicability of the subsequent Scheme, a Bench of two-Judges of this Court held, following the earlier decision in State Bank of India Vs. Jaspal Kaur11, that the cause of action to be considered for compassionate appointment arose when the earlier Scheme was in force. Hence, the claim could not be decided on the basis of the subsequent Scheme which 11 (2007) 9 SCC 571 26 provided only for the payment of ex gratia. Moreover, as a matter of fact, the subsequent scheme was superseded in 2014 by reviving the Scheme for the provision of compassionate appointment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 362 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

State Of J&K & Others vs Sajad Ahmed Mir on 17 July, 2006

We are not impressed with the submission that delay should not be taken into account since Paragraph 8 of the Scheme contemplates that in a situation where all the dependant children of the deceased employee have yet to attain the age of majority, the time limit for submission of an application is extended until the first of the children attains the age of twenty one years. A case where each of the children is a minor falls in a different class altogether. This cannot be equated with a situation where a dependant of a deceased employee who was a major on the date of death fails to submit an application within a reasonable period of time from the death of the employee. This aspect of delay has been dealt with in other decisions of this Court, including State of J&K Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir12 and Local Administration Department Vs. M. Selvanayagam13.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 300 - C K Thakker - Full Document
1   2 Next