Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.56 seconds)
Union Of India & Anr vs Shashank Goswami & Anr on 23 May, 2012 cites

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

11. This Court in Punjab National Bank & Ors. V. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, (2004) 7 SCC 265, placing reliance upon the earlier judgment in General Manager (D&PB) & Ors. V. Kunti Tiwari & Anr., (2004) 7 SCC 271, held that compassionate appointment has to be made in accordance with the Rules, Regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. Whereas the scheme provides that in case the family of the deceased gets the retrial/ terminal benefits exceeding a particular ceiling, the dependant of such deceased employee, would not be eligible for compassionate appointment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 246 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 14 March, 2008

In Mumtaz YunusMulani (Smt.) v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2008) 11 SCC 384, this Court examined the scope of employment on compassionate ground in a similar scheme making the dependant of an employee ineligible for the post in case the family receives terminal/ retiral benefits above the sealing limit and held that the judgment in Govind Prakash (supra) had been decided without considering earlier judgments which were binding on the Bench. The Court further held that that the appointment has to be made considering the terms of the scheme and in case the scheme lays down a criterion that if the family of the deceased employee gets a particular amount as retiral/terminal benefits, dependent of the deceased employee would not be eligible for employment on compassionate grounds.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 295 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1