Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.34 seconds)
Amla R vs The Secretary Indian Audit And Accounts ... on 28 March, 2023 cites

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

The counsel also relied on the decisions reported in State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Shashi Kumar [(2019) 3 SCC 653], Union of India and Another v. Shashank Goswami and another [(2012) 11 SCC 307] and Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited and Others v. T. Padmakumari Amma [2007(1)KHC376]. According to the learned counsel, Shashank Goswami, quoted supra, is apt to the facts of this case. Now, by the revised guidelines issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General, a family member of a Group-B employee who got more than Rs.14 lakhs as retiral benefits is not entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. According to him, the case of the applicant was considered in the light of the office memorandum dated 16.01.2013 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, (Department of Personnel and Training).
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 482 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs Shashank Goswami & Anr on 23 May, 2012

In fact, as we have noted earlier, in the decision of this court in Shashank Goswami(supra), the Court was specifically dealing with a circular of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India which had imposed income limits respectively for Group 'B', 'C' and 'D' posts for the purpose of guiding the decision in the case of compassionate appointment. The fixation of income limits was not construed to be and is not an arbitrary exercise of power. However, what we find from the record of this case is that O.A No.731/2019 15 the income limit was fixed (as the High Court observed) on 29 September 2008 by the letter of the Finance Department. The income limit of Rs.1,00,000/- for a family of four persons has since been revised to Rs.1,50,000/- on 20 April 2011. Mr. P.S. Patwalia has, on instructions, stated before this Court that this ceiling has been reiterated on 27 July 2017. What should be the appropriate income criterion is undoubtedly a matter of policy for the State Government to determine. However, we would impress upon the State Government the need to periodically revise the income limits preferably at intervals of three years. Inflation and the increase in the cost of living have an important bearing on financial exigencies faced by families of serving as well as deceased employees. In fixing the income criteria for considering cases of compassionate appointment, it would be appropriate if the State revisits the income limit at periodic intervals, as we have indicated above. We clarify that it would be open to the State to revise the income limits at a frequency of less than three years, if the State is so advised."
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 304 - Full Document

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

"..........As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the O.A No.731/2019 11 eligible member of the family..........."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 2647 - P B Sawant - Full Document
1