Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (1.11 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
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 grant 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."
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana (Sawant, J.) on 4 May, 1994
"It has been indicated in the decision of Umesh Kumar Nagpal (Supra) that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a long lapse of reasonable period and the very purpose of compassionate appointment, as an exception to the general rule of open recruitment, is intended to meet the immediate financial problem being suffered by the members of the family of the deceased employee.
Punjab National Bank & Ors vs Ashwini Kumar Taneja on 16 August, 2004
The same view was followed in Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja7.
National Hydroelectric Power ... vs Nanak Chand & Anr on 15 October, 2004
In National Hydroelectric Power Corporation & Anr. Vs. Nanak Chand & Anr.8, the principle was formulated as follows:
Commissioner Of Public Instructions & ... vs K.R. Vishwanath on 30 August, 2005
In Commissioner of Public Instructions & Ors. Vs. K.R. Vishwanath9, the following principles were laid down by the Supreme Court:
Smt. Sushma Gosain And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 25 August, 1989
Specifically dealing with a situation where a dependent was a minor at the date of death of the employee, the Supreme Court referred to the decision in Sushma Gosain & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.10 and observed thus:
Smt. Phoolwati vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 December, 1990
"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 envisages specifically otherwise, to state that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit. The above view was reiterated in Phoolwati (Smt.) v. Union of India and Ors.11 and Union of India and Ors. v. Bhagwan Singh12.
Union Of India And Ors vs Bhagwan Singh on 30 August, 1995
"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 envisages specifically otherwise, to state that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit. The above view was reiterated in Phoolwati (Smt.) v. Union of India and Ors.11 and Union of India and Ors. v. Bhagwan Singh12.