Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.25 seconds)
State Bank Of India Rae Bareli ... vs Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh on 25 January, 2018 cites

Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana (Sawant, J.) on 4 May, 1994

Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others (supra) was not a case where financial condition of family was in question. There, an attempt was made by legal representatives of deceased employee to get compassionate appointment on a post, above Class III and IV which was dispelled by Court. It was held that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of right of equal opportunity to all persons. Such exception is permissible looking to the objective that compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succour to family who has come in penurious conditions due to sudden death of sole bread earner of the family. It is not to confer status upon the family members of deceased employee and also not a reservation against a post to post. If dependent of a deceased employee finds it below his dignity to accept the post offered to him, he is free not to do so. Court also said that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or granted after a lapse of reasonable period, which must be specified in the rules. Relevant observations made by Court in para-5 and 6 of judgment are reproduced as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 2647 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Punjab National Bank & Ors vs Ashwini Kumar Taneja on 16 August, 2004

16. The other authority relied by Shri Seth is of Punjab National Bank and others Vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja : (2004) 7 SCC 265, wherein also father of Ashwini Kumar Taneja, a Class IV employee in Punjab National Bank died on 03.12.1999 in harness leaving behind his mother, widow, two sons and one daughter. Request for compassionate appointment was declined by Bank, whereagainst writ petition before Rajasthan High Court was allowed by learned Single Judge and Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed by Division Bench. That is how matter was brought to Supreme Court, by Bank. Therein, argument was raised on behalf of Ashwini Kumar Taneja that for considering financial hardship, amount paid towards gratuity, provident fund, etc., cannot be looked into, which was negatived by Court. We also find from the judgment that High Court had allowed claim of Ashwini Kumar Taneja on this very ground that for considering application for compassionate appointment, retiral benefits cannot be taken into account and this question "whether retiral benefits can be considered for judging financial hardships or not" has been answered by Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 246 - A Pasayat - Full Document

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

In State Bank of India Vs. Jaspal Kaur : 2007 (9) SCC 571, Court reiterated principles that under scheme applicable to the Bank, in order to establish financial condition of family, amount paid towards terminal benefits, investments, income from other sources, etc., have to be taken into account. Therein Sukhbir Inder Singh husband of Jaspal Kaur died in harness on 01.08.1999 while working as Record Assistant. An application for compassionate appointment of widow was rejected by Bank. In writ petition filed by Jaspal Kaur, High Court directed Bank to reconsider the application, which was again declined. The matter again came to High Court, which took a view that retiral benefits of Rs. 4,57,607/- paid to the family as terminal benefits cannot be said to be a sufficient amount to bring away family from financial hardship. Court found that family of deceased consisted of a widow, two daughters and a son. Terminal benefits were paid as Rs.4,57,607/- and monthly pension was Rs. 2,055/-. However, instead of considering the matter in the light of Scheme as it was applicable in 2000, when application for compassionate appointment was made, High Court applied the scheme which came into force on 04.08.2005 and decided the matter accordingly. This approach of High Court was found erroneous and it was held that a dispute which arose in 2000, ought to have been decided on the basis of Scheme as was available on that date and not on a scheme which came into force in 2005.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 362 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Punjab National Bank ( S/S 687/2005 ) vs Sri Deepak Pandey on 21 November, 2013

21. Similarly, in Punjab National Bank Vs. Deepak Pandey (Special Appeal No. 867 of 2006), decided on 21.11.2013, Court found that family pension was Rs.4,807/- per month after death of deceased, while deceased employee after various deductions was having a carry home salary of only Rs. 4,807/-. In these facts, it was held that family was not in penurious condition.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - R R Awasthi - Full Document
1