Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)
State Of Up And 3 Others vs Mahaveer Singh And 2 Others on 12 January, 2016 cites

Anand Kumar Sharma vs State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary And Others on 13 February, 2014

In fact, as held by the Full Bench of this Court in Anand Kumar Sharma (supra), the mere making of an application would not in a situation such as the present confer an indefeasible or vested right to out of turn appointments or promotions, nor for that matter, would a recommendation made upon the application confer such an indefeasible right. The office memorandum contemplated the creation of ex-cadre posts by the State Government on the recommendation of the Director General of Police. It is only upon the creation of ex-cadre posts and the recommendation of the Director General of Police for an out of turn appointment that the State Government would make an out of turn appointment. A conscious policy decision has been taken by the State Government based on the exigencies of the service to the effect that in terms of the Government Order dated 7 June 2014, the office memorandum would stand rescinded and that the scheme of out of turn appointments would stand substituted by monetary compensation. Emphasis was sought to be laid on behalf of the respondents on the fact that the judgment of the Public Service Tribunal in the case of a Sub-Inspector by the name of Jitendra Singh Kalra5 accepted the case for the grant of out of turn promotion which has been accepted by the State Government. Even assuming that this is so, we find no reason or basis to extend the benefit in general terms in other cases once the Government Order dated 7 June 2014 has come into force.
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

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

The decision of the Supreme Court in Canara Bank (supra) dealt with a situation where there was a dying-in-harness scheme under a circular of the Canara Bank dated 8 May 1993. An employee of the Bank died while on duty on 10 October 1998 and an application was made on 30 November 1998 by his heirs for seeking compassionate appointment on the basis of the scheme. The Bank rejected the application on 30 June 1999. Upon a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court being moved in writ proceedings, the petition was allowed on 30 May 2003 by directing the Bank to reconsider the claim in accordance with law. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on 24 August 2006. By the time the Division Bench had decided the writ appeal, the scheme for compassionate appointment was scrapped and the Indian Bank Association formulated a scheme based on guidelines of the Union Government stipulating ex gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment. A circular was issued on 14 February 2005 and it was asserted on behalf of the Bank that as on the date of consideration of the application for compassionate appointment, there was no policy to provide such an appointment under the 1993 Scheme. The Supreme Court, in these facts, held that the father of the respondent had died in October 1998 when the dying-in-harness scheme of 8 May 1993 was in force and in fact, the Bank had rejected the claim on 30 June 1999 under the scheme, holding that there were no indigent circumstances. Hence, the cause of action to be considered for compassionate appointment had arisen when the circular of 8 May 1993 was in force and the circular of 2005 being an administrative order was held not to have retrospective effect. Moreover, the Supreme Court also observed that the 2005 scheme which provided only for ex gratia payment in lieu of appointment had in fact been substituted (during the pendency of the proceedings before the Supreme Court) in 2014 and a new scheme had been arrived at for providing compassionate appointment. Hence, as on the date of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the scheme in force provided for the grant of compassionate appointment. It was in these facts, which are clearly distinguishable, that the Supreme Court held that the Bank was not justified in contending that the application for compassionate appointment could not be considered in view of the passage of time.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 709 - R Banumathi - Full Document
1