Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.36 seconds)
Geeta Devi vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 November, 2015 cites

Punjab National Bank & Ors vs Ashwini Kumar Taneja on 16 August, 2004

23. The same view again in fact was reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Panjab National Bank & Ors vs Ashwini Kumar Taneja reported in (2004) 7 SCC 265, by examining the policy of the State Bank of India providing for examining of the financial condition of the family, wherein, the amount of family pension, gratuity amount received, Employee's/Employer's contribution to PF, any compensation paid by the bank or its Welfare Fund, proceeds of LIC policy and other investments of the deceased employee, income of family from other sources, employment of other family member and size of the family and liabilities, if any, etc., were to be taken into consideration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 246 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Lic vs Asha Ramchandra Ambekar on 28 February, 1994

This Court as early as in the decision reported in LIC of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambedkar reported in (1994) 2 SCC 718 held that the courts cannot direct appointments on compassionate grounds dehors the provisions of the Scheme in force governed by rules/regulations/instructions. If in a given case, the department of the Government concerned declines, as a matter of policy, not to deviate from the mandate of the provisions underlying the Scheme and refuses to relax the stipulation in respect of ceiling fixed therein, the courts cannot compel the authorities to exercise its jurisdiction in a particular way and that too by relaxing the essential conditions, when no grievance of violation of substantial rights of parties could be held to have been proved, otherwise.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 491 - S Mohan - Full Document

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

16. As with regard to the applicability of the circular dated 19.02.2003 on which great emphasis was laid by Mr. Giri, it has to be found that the Secretary to the Government of India was only complying the directions given by this Court as with regard to considering the case of the petitioner in the light of payment of terminal benefits made to her. Let it be also kept in mind that the petitioner's application for the first time for compassionate appointment was filed only on 18.09.2006, and by that time the circular of the Government Patna High Court CWJC No.9904 of 2015 17 of India dated 19.02.2003, had already come into force which of course was related to the set up and organization and policy of compassionate appointment in the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), has been noticed in paragraph no. 13 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the Civil Appeal No.(s) 6224 of 2008 (Union of India & Anr Vs Shashank Goswami & Anr) disposed of on 23.05.2012, which reads as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 304 - Full Document

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

18. This Court in fact does not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Circular dated 19.02.2003, has been applied in the case of the husband of the petitioner, inasmuch as, he was missing since 05.02.1997, but the decree of the Civil Court was passed only on 31.08.2005, and the application of the petitioner was filed for compassionate appointment claiming her husband to be dead on the basis of such decree only on 25.09.2006, therefore, reliance by Mr. Giri on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar (supra) seems to be wholly misplaced. In that case, it was in relation to the employee of the Canara Bank, there was policy of dying in harness scheme dated 08.05.1993, and the application was filed by Mahesh Kumar on 30.11.1998, for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground of death of his father, a clerk in the Canara Bank on 10.10.1998. Such application was filed by Mahesh Kumar, in view of the policy of dying Patna High Court CWJC No.9904 of 2015 19 in harness effective w.e.f. 08.05.1993, and the same was rejected initially on the ground that financial position did not show any indigent circumstances. Such order of the Canara Bank was quashed by learned Single of the Kerala High Court and was also affirmed by the Division Bench, whereafter the appeal was taken to the Apex Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 709 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Union Of India vs Joginder Sharma on 30 September, 2002

"4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. The compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the sloe breadwineer, who died leaving the family in penury and without sufficient means of livelihood. If under the Scheme in force any such claim for compassionate appointment can be countenanced only as against a specified number of vacancies arising, in this case 5 per cent, which ceiling it is claimed came to be imposed in view of certain observations emanating from this Court in an earlier decision, the Tribunal or the High Court cannot compel the department concerned to relax the ceiling and appoint a person. Since, this method of appointment is in deviation of the normal recruitment process under the rules, Patna High Court CWJC No.9904 of 2015 13 where people are waiting in the queue indefinitely, the policy laid down by the Government regarding such appointment should not be departed from by the courts/tribunals by issuing directions for relaxations, merely on account of sympathetic considerations or hardships of the person concerned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 33 - D Raju - Full Document
1   2 Next