Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.30 seconds)
M/S Bhilai Steel Plant vs The General Secretary on 26 April, 2024 cites

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Shashi Kumar on 16 January, 2019

Similarly, in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shashi Kumar (supra), this Court has observed that compassionate appointment being an exception to the general rule, the dependents of deceased government employee are made eligible by virtue of the policy of compassionate appointment and they must fulfill the terms of the policy which are framed by the State/Employees.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 482 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

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

10. In the exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, it was not open to the High Court to rewrite the terms of the Policy. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but must be governed by the terms on which the State lays down the policy of offering employment assistance to a member of the family of a deceased government employee. Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138; SBI v. Kunti Tiwary, (2004)7SCC 271; Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Teneja, (2004) 7 SCC 265; SBI v. Somvir Singh, (2007) 4 SCC 778; Mumtaz Yunus Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:14717 14 Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384; Union of India v. Shashank Goswami, (2012) 11 SCC 307; SBI v. Surya Narain Tripathi, (2014) 15 SCC 739; and Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412.
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

10. In the exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, it was not open to the High Court to rewrite the terms of the Policy. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but must be governed by the terms on which the State lays down the policy of offering employment assistance to a member of the family of a deceased government employee. Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138; SBI v. Kunti Tiwary, (2004)7SCC 271; Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Teneja, (2004) 7 SCC 265; SBI v. Somvir Singh, (2007) 4 SCC 778; Mumtaz Yunus Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:14717 14 Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384; Union of India v. Shashank Goswami, (2012) 11 SCC 307; SBI v. Surya Narain Tripathi, (2014) 15 SCC 739; and Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 246 - A Pasayat - Full Document

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

10. In the exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, it was not open to the High Court to rewrite the terms of the Policy. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but must be governed by the terms on which the State lays down the policy of offering employment assistance to a member of the family of a deceased government employee. Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138; SBI v. Kunti Tiwary, (2004)7SCC 271; Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Teneja, (2004) 7 SCC 265; SBI v. Somvir Singh, (2007) 4 SCC 778; Mumtaz Yunus Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:14717 14 Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384; Union of India v. Shashank Goswami, (2012) 11 SCC 307; SBI v. Surya Narain Tripathi, (2014) 15 SCC 739; and Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 295 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next