Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Haryana And Anr vs Ankur Gupta on 3 September, 2003
It was also held in the State of Haryana versus
Ankur Gupta, reported in 2003 (7) SCC 704, that such
appointments cannot be made de hors of any statutory policy.
Gen. Manager,Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan vs Laxmi Devi & Ors on 15 May, 2009
In Laxmi Devi (supra), it was further reiterated that rules
relating to the compassionate appointment have to be given strict
interpretation and compassionate appointment cannot be claimed
as a matter of right.
Union Of India & Ors vs N. Hargopal & Ors on 13 April, 1987
(ii) When the respondent Railway had advertised for
engagement of Course Completed Trained Act Apprentice in
Group D vide notification dated 10.09.2004, the said
notification and the policy decision dated 30.08.2004 were
challenged before this Tribunal in OA No.264/2004. Such OA
6
was allowed by this Tribunal in its order dated 24.02.2005 as
annexed at Annexure-R/1 to the reply. This Tribunal, upon
reliance on Union of India versus Hargopal (AIR 1987 SC
1227) found that the action of the respondents was
unjustified and declared the impugned policy as arbitrary,
discriminatory and as offensive to the equality clause as
enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This
Tribunal, however, did not preclude the respondents to
taking recourse to engage the Fresh Face substitutes against
group D posts in emergent situations, after having
considered the relevant instructions/rules in force and the
observations of this Tribunal as contained in its orders.
Section 5 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana & Ors vs Rani Devi & Anr on 15 July, 1996
In Rani Devi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court had
considered compassionate appointment to dependants of Act
Apprentices to be illegal. Accordingly, in deference to the judgment
of Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble High Court whose outcome
was the deciding factor in case of the engagement of the ex-
employee, the applicant's claim of compassionate appointment
against the engagement of her spouse/ex-employee fails.
Haryana State Electricity Board vs Krishna Devi on 19 March, 2002
In Haryana State Electricity Board versus Krishna Devi,
reported in 2002 (10) SCC 246, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that in the absence of the extant rules or instructions at the time of
death of the employees, there can be no claim for compassionate
appointment.
Abdul Hamid And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. The General ... on 20 September, 2017
This order of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan was
challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal
No(s). 5027-5029 of 2012 (Abdul Hamid & Ors. Vs. Union
of India & Ors). The Hon'ble Apex Court, on 20.09.2017
(Annexure-R/3 to the OA), dismissed the said SLPs upon
holding that the provisionally engagement of Course
Completed Trained Act Apprentices as Fresh Face Substitutes
was illegal, and, as the applicant's spouse was one of such
provisionally engaged Course Completed Trained Act
Apprentice as Fresh Face Substitute, his appointment stood
as terminated from the date of the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court.
Nirmala Devi And Ors. Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India on 30 September, 2021
10. Learned counsel for the applicant would refer to a decision of
this Tribunal in its Coordinate Bench at Jaipur in OA No.299/2001
13
(Nirmala Devi vs. Union of India & Ors), wherein this Tribunal
had observed as under:-
1