Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.70 seconds)
V. Sivamurthy & Anr vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 12 August, 2008 cites

Food Corporation Of India & Another vs Ram Kesh Yadav & Another on 27 February, 2007

16. There are of course safeguards to be taken to ensure the scheme is not misused. One is to ensure that mere medical unfitness to continue in a post is not treated as medical invalidation for purposes of compassionate appointment. A government servant should totally cease to be employable and become a burden on his family, to warrant compassionate appointment to a member of his family. Another is barring compassionate appointments to dependants of an employee who seeks voluntary retirement on medical grounds on the verge of superannuation. This Court observed in Ram Kesh Yadav (supra) as follows :
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 51 - Full Document

State Of Haryana & Ors vs Rani Devi & Anr on 15 July, 1996

"As was observed in State of Haryana v. Rani Devi (1996) 5 SCC 308 it need not be pointed out that the claim of the person concerned for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premise that he was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly, this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative orders which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right.....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 the 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."
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 268 - N P Singh - Full Document

Auditor General Of India vs G.Ananta Rajeswara Rao on 8 April, 1993

10. The High Court referred to the various decisions dealing with compassionate appointments and culled out the principles relating to compassionate appointment. Then it referred to the decision of this Court in Auditor General of India v. G.Ananta Rajeswara Rao [1994 (1) SCC 192] and inferred therefrom a proposition that there can be no compassionate appointment in cases other than death in harness cases. On that basis, it proceeded to hold that appointments on compassionate grounds on medical invalidation were contrary to the principles underlying Article 16 and therefore, unconstitutional. Firstly, this Court in Ananta Rajeswara Rao, nowhere laid down a proposition that compassionate appointment can be only in cases of death in harness and not in cases of medical invalidation or other contingencies. Secondly, the High Court overlooked the fact that the principles underlying Article 16 were violated, not only in cases of compassionate appointments as a consequence of medical invalidation, but also in cases of compassionate appointments as a consequence of death in harness. But both are saved as they are considered to be exceptions to the rule contained in Article 16, carved out to meet special contingences in the interests of justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 96 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 Next