Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.26 seconds)
Vivek Martin vs Assistant General Manager on 17 August, 2022 cites

Central Bank Of India vs Nitin on 3 August, 2022

8. From the pleadings of the parties it is not in dispute that the family members of the deceased employee have received financial benefits through gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund, family pension, Life Insurance Corporation and financial consideration may be a ground for denying the compassionate appointment as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5111 of 2022 in case of Central Bank of India vs. Nitin decided on 03.08.2022 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after examining the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held at Paragraph 19, 20 and 21 as under:-
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 5 - Cited by 99 - I Banerjee - Full Document

Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977

10. The respondent bank while rejecting the claim of the petitioner has nowhere mentioned whether the assets/retiral dues of the deceased employee are sufficient to maintain the family of a deceased employee which is paramount consideration as per the sub-clause 7 of Clause 19 of the scheme. The order impugned Annexure-P/1 is silent to that effect. The respondent have made an attempt to justify the order by supplementing the grounds, which was not part of the order Annexure P/1 but justifying the rejection order by mentioning in the reply filed before this Court. This practice has not been approved by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the judgment of Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner reported in (1978) (1) SCC 405, wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held at paragraph 8 as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 4221 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1