Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.51 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana (Sawant, J.) on 4 May, 1994
In the case of Umesh Kumar
Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (supra) it was said:
Smt. Sushma Gosain And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 25 August, 1989
The question of appointment of one of the dependants of
an employee of the State or Central Government who dies
while in service has of late assumed importance and subject
matter of controversy before different courts. This Court in
the case of Smt. Sushma Gosain & Ors. vs. Union of India &
Ors., AIR 1989 SC 1976 = (1989) 4 SCC 468 after referring to
the Government Memorandum under which the appointment on
compassionate ground was being claimed observed that the
purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is
to mitigate the hardship due to the death of the bread
earner in the family. It cannot be on disputed that
appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the
equaliity clause under Article 14 and can be upheld if such
appointees can be held to form a class by themselves,
otherwise any such appointment merely on the ground that the
person concerned happens to be a dependant of an ex-employee
of the State Government or the Central Government shall be
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. But
this Court has held that if an employee dies while in
service then accordiing to rule framed by the Central
Government or the State Government to appoint one of the
dependants shall not be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution because it is to mitigate the hardship due
to the death of the bread earner of the family and sudden
misery faced by the members of the family of such employee
who had served the Central Government or the State
Government. It appears that this benefit has also been
extended to the employees of the authorities which can be
held to be a State within the meaning of Articie 12 of the
Constitution. But while framing any rule in respect of
appointment on compassionate ground the authorities have to
conscious of the fact that this right which is being
extended to a dependant of the deceased employee is an
exception to the right granted to the citizen under Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution. As such there should be a
proper check and balance. Of late, it appears the right to
be appointed on compassionate ground is being claimed as a
right of inheritance irrespective of the nature of service
rendered by the deceased employee. In many cases,
applications for appointments on compassionate grounds are
being made even after 10-15 years because on the date of the
death of the employee the applicant was a minor and could
not have been appointed.
Lic vs Asha Ramchandra Ambekar on 28 February, 1994
In the case of Life Insurance
Corporation of India vs. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar & Anr.,
(1994) 2 SCC 718 this Court pointed out that the High Courts
and the Administrative Tribunals cannot issue directions on
sympathetic considerations to make appointments on
compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect
thereof do not cover and contemplate such appointments. Any
such right for appointment on compassionate ground flows on
basis of rules, regulations or some administrative order
issued in the form of resolution or office memorandum.
State Of Haryana vs Naresh Kumar Bali on 17 May, 1994
In the
case of State of Haryana vs. Naresh Kumar Bali, (1994) 4 SCC
448 on an appeal filed by State of Haryana, a 3-Judges Bench
of this Court deprecated the direction given by the High
Court to appoint the respondent of the said case against a
post of an Inspector and it was observed that the High Court
should have merely directed consideration of the claim of
the said respondent in accordance with rules.
1