Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.33 seconds)
Sanjeev Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 September, 2022 cites

Canara Bank & Anr vs M. Mahesh Kumar on 15 May, 2015

16. A two judges bench headed by Justice Uday U. Lalit noticed the Supreme Court's view in State Bank of 61 India v. Raj Kumar, (supra) and MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, (supra) on one side and the contrary view in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) and felt the necessity of resolution of the conflicting question on whether the norms applicable on the date of death or on the date of consideration of application should apply.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 709 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Mgb Gramin Bank vs Chakrawarti Singh on 7 August, 2013

16. A two judges bench headed by Justice Uday U. Lalit noticed the Supreme Court's view in State Bank of 61 India v. Raj Kumar, (supra) and MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, (supra) on one side and the contrary view in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) and felt the necessity of resolution of the conflicting question on whether the norms applicable on the date of death or on the date of consideration of application should apply.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 853 - Full Document

State Bank Of India & Anr vs Raj Kumar on 8 February, 2010

16. A two judges bench headed by Justice Uday U. Lalit noticed the Supreme Court's view in State Bank of 61 India v. Raj Kumar, (supra) and MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, (supra) on one side and the contrary view in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) and felt the necessity of resolution of the conflicting question on whether the norms applicable on the date of death or on the date of consideration of application should apply.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 861 - R V Raveendran - 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 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

State Bank Of India vs Sheo Shankar Tewari on 8 February, 2019

67. It is seen that with regard to the question as to whether the Policy in force on the date of death of the government employee is to be applied or the Policy at the time of consideration of the application for compassionate appointment is to be considered, there is a divergence of opinion. It is already noticed that a reference was already made in Sheo Shankar Tewai (supra) for consideration of 66 this issue by at least a Bench of minimum three Hon'ble Judges. It is to be noticed that a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken a view that it is the scheme that is holding the field on the date of consideration has to be applied.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 82 - U U Lalit - Full Document

State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another vs Shri Parkash Chand on 20 August, 2016

35. The respondent's application for compassionate appointment in Parkash Chand (supra) was rejected on the ground that the brother of the respondent is in service of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity 48 Board. In the writ petition filed before the High Court, the respondent had urged that his brother was living separately for seventeen years and accordingly had prayed for setting aside the order of rejection as well as a direction for his appointment as a Peon on compassionate ground. The High Court had observed that the State should consider the cases for appointment on compassionate basis by dealing with the applications submitted by sons, or as the case may be, daughters of the deceased government employees, even though, one member of the family is engaged in the service of the Government or an autonomous Board or Corporation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in 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 and the direction of the High Court virtually amounted to a mandamus to the State Government to disregard the terms which have been stipulated in Para 5(c) of its Policy dated 18.01.1990. It was noticed that the Policy contains a limited exception which is available only to a widow of a deceased employee who seeks compassionate appointment even though one of the children of the deceased employee is gainfully employed with the State. The basis for this exception was to deal with cases if the widow is not being financially supported by her children. It was held by the Supreme Court that the High Court had virtually rewritten the terms of the Policy which is impermissible in law and accordingly, had set aside the order of the High Court. Resultantly, the writ petition was also dismissed.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 27 - C B Barowalia - 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 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
1   2 3 4 Next