Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.36 seconds)
M Senthil Kumar vs D/O Post on 12 September, 2018 cites

Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana (Sawant, J.) on 4 May, 1994

6. The counsel for the respondents would content that the compassionate appointment scheme does not give any right to the applicant and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right (Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana). According to the counsel for the respondents, the RMP procedure was introduced only for making the 4 OA 323/2015 procedure for ascertaining indigency transparent and it is not a scheme in itself.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 2647 - P B Sawant - Full Document

State Bank Of India & Ors. .... ... vs Aspal Kaur ...Respondent(S) on 1 February, 2007

In State Bank of India & Others vs. Jaspal Kaur (2007) 9 SCC 571 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the matter of compassionate appointment should be decided within the parameters of scheme prevailing when the application for compassionate appointment filed. In this case, the application was filed only in the year 2006 and only the scheme prevailing at that time can be taken into consideration. The scheme 5 OA 323/2015 prevailing was that produced as Annexure R1 (OM 14014/6/94-Estt(D) of DoPT dated 09.10.1998. The RMP scheme has not changed the compassionate appointment scheme as such. It had only made the procedure more transparent and to avoid unnecessary considerations creeping in the selection of the persons who are most indigent and in need of support. Another contention put forward is that in a similar case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ordered for the appointment of 202 persons (Annexure A1). On going through Annexure A1 (Civil Appeal No.7773/2009 dated 30.7.2010) it can be seen that the facts are not similar. The M/o Communications in that case had recommended 204 persons for appointment, who are already working in various short term/leave vacancies for various years 2001 to 2009 and the appointments were given as one time measure as department had agreed that they are willing to accommodate them against residual vacancies of the department and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ordered the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has left the question of law open. In this matter, the applicant's case is not similar and the said decision will not come to the hold of applicant. So there is no merit in the arguments raised by the applicant herein.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 362 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document
1