Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.37 seconds)
Ex. Sub Paras Ram vs The Union Of India & Ors. on 10 July, 2014 cites

Anna Deoram Londhe Deceased Through His ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 June, 1998

In Anna Deoram Londhe (supra), the petitioner had been removed from service for misconduct, on account of his conviction under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. However, since such misconduct was not connected with the discharge of his duties and that the petitioner had put in more than thirty (30) years of service and was found to be otherwise eligible for superannuation or retiring pension, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to compassionate pension because removal from service for the misconduct would not be sufficient ground to deny him the benefit of compassionate pension.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 12 - A B Palkar - Full Document

Ex. Asi Shadi Ram vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 22 February, 2008

11. This Court is of the view that it is such circumstances as the present, which require compassionate consideration. It is pertinent to note that in Shadi Ram (supra), the officer concerned was charged with illegal gratification, while the present case is of disproportionate assets. The former being a far more serious charge and compassionate allowance having been granted, this Court is of the view that a conviction for disproportionate assets of Rs.93,000/-, the petitioner, whose service of thirty (30) years otherwise shows merit, has also reached the second highest rank in his cadre through promotion on merit, should be granted compassionate allowance especially since he would have otherwise qualified for regular pension and gratuity. While the passage of time would not extenuate the seriousness of the charge _______________________________________________________________________ WP (C) No.2139 of 2012 Page 11 of 12 or the punishment, the entire tenure needs to be assessed and not be confined to the incident which led to his dismissal from service. The punishment meted out was the severest that could have been in the circumstances, i.e., he was dismissed from service without any pensionary benefits. The personal circumstances of the petitioner as narrated hereinabove too show a difficult disposition:
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 24 - S K Misra - Full Document

Mithlesh Sharan Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 17 October, 2003

he and his wife‟s advanced age and their corporal frailty tormented by afflictions without familial support are aggravating circumstances deserving a compassionate view a la Mithilesh Sharan Sharma (supra). This Court is of the view that de hors the disproportionate assets case, the petitioner, whose service of 30 years otherwise shows merit, should be granted compassionate allowance.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next