Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.27 seconds)
Satyendra Kumar Parbatsinh Zala And ... vs Secretary, Govt. Of Gujarat, Education ... on 4 December, 1992 cites

Smt. Sushma Gosain And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 25 August, 1989

Similarly, in the case of Smt. Pholwati v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1991 SC 469 the Supreme Court issued directions to the Central Government to take immediate steps for employing second son of appellant in suitable post commensurate with the educational qualification by following its earlier judgment in the case of Smt. Susma Gosai (supra). It, thus becomes clear that in appropriate cases where the death of employee in Government Service in harness brings about a situation of rendering his family, i.e., his widow son or unmarried daughter in helpless and/or destitute condition there is obligation on the part of the State Government to look back upon the family of the deceased employee and to consider the claim of such family member who is otherwise eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. The State may prescribe terms and conditions subject to which such appointment on compassionate grounds can be given. It may examine whether the claimant genuinely needed appointment on compassionate ground failing which the entire family would be rendered helpless, hopeless and destitute. It can also see that only in genuine and exceptional case such right is recognised and that the appointment on compassionate grounds in Government Service may not become a parallel source of recruitment. But at the same time, it cannot run away from such obligation when family of its own employee is rendered helpless and destitute. Consistent with the aforesaid principle if the policy underlying the Government Resolution, dated July 4, 1988 is interpreted and applied reasonably. I have no manner of doubt that State Government intended to extend its benefit to the dependents of the employees who have died within a period of five years.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 1022 - K J Shetty - Full Document

Smt. Phoolwati vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 December, 1990

Similarly, in the case of Smt. Pholwati v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1991 SC 469 the Supreme Court issued directions to the Central Government to take immediate steps for employing second son of appellant in suitable post commensurate with the educational qualification by following its earlier judgment in the case of Smt. Susma Gosai (supra). It, thus becomes clear that in appropriate cases where the death of employee in Government Service in harness brings about a situation of rendering his family, i.e., his widow son or unmarried daughter in helpless and/or destitute condition there is obligation on the part of the State Government to look back upon the family of the deceased employee and to consider the claim of such family member who is otherwise eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. The State may prescribe terms and conditions subject to which such appointment on compassionate grounds can be given. It may examine whether the claimant genuinely needed appointment on compassionate ground failing which the entire family would be rendered helpless, hopeless and destitute. It can also see that only in genuine and exceptional case such right is recognised and that the appointment on compassionate grounds in Government Service may not become a parallel source of recruitment. But at the same time, it cannot run away from such obligation when family of its own employee is rendered helpless and destitute. Consistent with the aforesaid principle if the policy underlying the Government Resolution, dated July 4, 1988 is interpreted and applied reasonably. I have no manner of doubt that State Government intended to extend its benefit to the dependents of the employees who have died within a period of five years.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 620 - Full Document

Divya Ben D. Oza vs Divisional Controller, State Road ... on 13 February, 1989

In the case of the Divyaben Oza v. Divisional Controller, S.R.T.C., reported in 1990-I-LLJ-132 the learned single Judge of this Court was called upon to consider the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds as the policy framed by the State Road Transport Corporation was to give relief to the widow and minor dependents of deceased employee within five years of the death of the employee. Prior to prescription of said policy, the policy of the Corporation was to give appointment on compassionate grounds within one year from the date of death of employee. The said policy was, subsequently changed so as to prescribe period of five years from the date of death of employee within which the dependents can be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. The claim of the petitioner before the learned single Judge was denied on the grounds that when the employee died the old policy was applicable and the appointment on compassionate grounds could be made only within a period of one year. Negativing the aforesaid submission, the learned single Judge of this Court observed as under, (p. 133) "Thus, it is clear that the Corporation is alive of the needs of the family of the deceased employee when it consists of minor dependents and it is with this benevolent purpose that it has extended the period to five years. The elder son attained the majority in 1980 whereas his father had died in 1978. Thus, within about two years and two months of the death of the employee he has attained the majority and his case is covered by this circular. The argument of the respondent-corporation is that this circular came into operation only in February, 1980 and before that earlier circular was in existence which gave an opportunity upto one year only and therefore the rights of the petitioner and her elder son were governed by the earlier circular. It is not possible to accept this argument. The policy underlying the circular is to give relief to the widow and minor dependents of the deceased employee within five years of the date of death of the employee and even beyond that period. Having regard to that policy, it is clear that the case of the petitioner's eldest son clearly falls within the Standing Order No. 683, dated February 15, 1980 and the Corporation was not justified in refusing to give appointment to the eldest son merely on the ground that he attained majority after one year of death to the employee."
Gujarat High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1