Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)Haryana State Electricity Board vs Naresh Tanwar And Anr. on 2 February, 1996
He has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar and Anr. . It was strenuously submitted by him that the Hon'ble Apex Court in these judgments has considered and deprecated such appointments on compassionate ground when the dependents, on attaining majority after 12 or 13 years, have lodged claim and the appointment has been made. Mr. Shah has also submitted that in the facts of the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court, there was no time-limit prescribed for making such claim for compassionate appointment and yet the Hon'ble Apex Court has disapproved the appointment made pursuant to the order passed by the High Court at the belated stage. Mr. Shah submitted that in the present case the policy/guidelines have been framed by the Government and, therefore, if at all any claim for compassionate appointment can be made, it can be subject to the fulfillment of the conditions prescribed therein and as the respondent-original plaintiff was not covered by them after the period of 5 years, and in fact it was about 10 years after occurrence of death of the deceased employee, and also the fact that the application was not made as prescribed within the stipulated period, the courts below ought to have considered this aspect and instead misinterpreted the guidelines and, therefore, in light of the judgments of the ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the appeal may be allowed.
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs Seshammal on 8 May, 2006
The learned Government Pleader submitted the substantial questions of law at the time of hearing as follows, which were required to be considered in light of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hero Vinoth (minor) v. Seshammal :
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana (Sawant, J.) on 4 May, 1994
Further, it has been quoted by the Hon'ble Apex Court, referring to the earlier judgment in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra),
For these very reasons, 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 Haryana & Ors vs Rani Devi & Anr on 15 July, 1996
The Hon'ble Apex Court has, in this judgment, deliberated all these aspects considering the claim of the dependent of the family and also the policy as well as the constitutional obligation under Articles 14 & 16, referring to the earlier judgment in the case of State of Haryana v. Rani Devi , and has observed that,the claim of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premise that he was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution. However, such claim is considered reasonable as also allowable on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of the employee who had served the State and died while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative instructions which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
State Of J&K & Others vs Sajad Ahmed Mir on 17 July, 2006
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of J&K and Ors.v. Sajad Ahmed Mir (supra), considering this very aspect of compassionate appointment and delay and laches in applying for such appointment, has made the relevant observations. In this case before the Hon'ble Apex Court, an application for compassionate appointment was made within 41/2 years after the death of the father, whereas in the present case, application is made after 10 years.
Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987
7. Learned advocate Mr. Paul for the respondent-original plaintiff submitted that the appellant-original defendant has not led any evidence. He referred to the judgment of the trial court and pointedly referred to the observations in para 8 of the judgment of the trial court. Further, it was submitted that once the defendant State has not challenged the version of the plaintiff, the trial court had no alternative but to accept the claim and allow the suit. It was submitted that the evidence of the plaintiff before both the trial court and the lower Appellate Court has remained unchallenged and, therefore, has rightly observed that the claim for compassionate appointment was rejected only on the ground that the plaintiff had not made an application within the prescribed time and it was delayed. Learned advocate Mr. Paul submitted that the plaintiff attained the age of majority on 21.5.1995 and he ought to have made an application within 6 months after attaining majority, but he made the application late and that was the only ground for which the application was rejected. Learned advocate Mr. Paul, therefore, submitted that if the government has framed guidelines as a policy or social measure, then the claim should not have been rejected only on such a ground. Learned advocate Mr. Paul submitted that in such benevolent policy a liberal view is required to be taken as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment reported in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. reported in 1987 SC 1353 and submitted that delay cannot defeat the cause of justice.
1