Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.43 seconds)Lic vs Asha Ramchandra Ambekar on 28 February, 1994
In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar
(Mrs.) and Anr. (1994 (2) SCC 718) it was pointed out that High Courts and
Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic
considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the
regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplates such
appointments.
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana (Sawant, J.) on 4 May, 1994
It was noted in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and
Ors. (1994 (4) SCC 138) that as a rule in public service appointment should
be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit.
The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment
but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into
consideration the fact of the death of employee while in service leaving his
family without any means of livelihood. In such cases the object is to
enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. But such appointments
on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules,
regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the
financial condition of the family of the deceased.
Smt. Sushma Gosain And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 25 August, 1989
In Smt. Sushma Gosain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1989 (4)
SCC 468) it was observed that in all claims of appointment on compassionate
grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of
providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship
due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should,
therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The
fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no
ground, unless the scheme itself envisage specifically otherwise, to state
that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any
time consciousness or limit.
Smt. Phoolwati vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 December, 1990
The above view was re-iterated in Phoolwati
(Smt.) v. Union of India and Ors. (1991 Supp.
Union Of India And Ors vs Bhagwan Singh on 30 August, 1995
(2) SCC 689) and Union of
India and Ors. v. Bhagwan Singh (1995 (6) SCC 476).
Director Of Education (Secondary) & Anr vs Pushpendra Kumar & Others on 13 May, 1998
In Director of Education
(Secondary) and Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar and Ors. (1998 (5) SCC 192); it was
observed that in matter of compassionate appointment there cannot be
insistence for a particular post. Out of purely humanitarian consideration
and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is
provided the family would not be able to make both ends meet, provisions are
made for giving appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may
be eligible for appointment. Care has, however, to be taken that provision
for ground of compassionate employment which is in the nature of an
exception to the general provisions does not unduly interfere with the right
of those other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek appointment
against the post which would have been available, but for the provision
enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependant of
the deceased employee. As it is in the nature of exception to the general
provisions it cannot substitute the provision to which it is an exception
and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right
conferred by the main provision.
State Of U.P. And Ors. vs Paras Nath on 15 January, 1998
In State of U.P. and Ors. v. Paras Nath (1998(2) SCC 412) it was held
that the purpose of providing employment to the dependant of a government
servant dying-in harness in preference to anybody else is to mitigate
hardship caused to the family of the deceased on account of his unexpected
death while in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such
appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are
Rules providing for such appointments. None of these considerations can
operate when the application is made after a long period of time. In that
case also the delay was 17 years.
Haryana State Electricity Board vs Naresh Tanwar And Anr. on 2 February, 1996
704), Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar (1996 (8) SCC 23)
and Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh (1997 (8) SCC 85) and
Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja (Civil Appeal No.
5256 of 2004 decided on 16.8.2004)
Above being the position, we find the judgment of the High Court to be
unsustainable. The same is, therefore, set aside.
Haryana State Electricity Board And ... vs Hakin Singh on 30 September, 1997
704), Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar (1996 (8) SCC 23)
and Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh (1997 (8) SCC 85) and
Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja (Civil Appeal No.
5256 of 2004 decided on 16.8.2004)
Above being the position, we find the judgment of the High Court to be
unsustainable. The same is, therefore, set aside.