DIPANKAR DATTA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Canara Bank – Appellant
Versus
Ajithkumar G. K. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
THE APPEAL
1. Canara Bank1[appellant] is in appeal, by special leave, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 4th November, 20192[impugned order] of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam3[High Court] dismissing an intra-court appeal that it had carried from the judgment and order dated 9th June, 2016 of a Single Bench allowing the writ petition of Ajithkumar G.K..4[respondent].
RESUME OF FACTS
2. The facts leading to this appeal are not disputed. However, a brief resume is considered necessary to decide the appeal.
b. A scheme for appointment on compassionate ground, formulated by the appellant and contained in Circular No. 154/93 dated 8th May, 19935[scheme of 1993], was in force when such death occurred. Within a month of his father’s death, the respondent applied on 15th January, 2002 seeking appointment on compassionate ground.
c. On 30th October, 2002, the respondent’s plea
State Bank of India v Somveer Singh
Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh
General Manager, State Bank of India v Anju Jain
Haryana State Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi
V. Sivamurthy v. Union of India
Sushma Gosain v. Union of India
Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi
State of Chattisgarh v. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar
Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India
Union of India v. Amrita Sinha
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana
I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi
State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari
Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar
National Institute of Technology v. Niraj Kumar Singh
Haryana Public Service Commission v. Harinder Singh
General Manager (D and PB) v. Kunti Tiwary
Union of India v. Shashank Goswami (2012) 11 SCC 307 [Para 11]
Union Bank of India v. M. T. Latheesh
National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v. Nank Chand
Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Dharmendra Sharma
Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana
MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh
State Bank of India v. Sheo Shankar Tewari
N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka (2020) 7 SCC 617 [Para 15]
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Amit Shrivas
State of Gujarat v. Arvind T. Tiwari
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthi (2022) 2 SCC 157 [Para 20]
Compassionate appointment requires assessment of financial distress; mere receipt of terminal benefits does not negate eligibility for such appointment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the scheme prevalent at the time of the death of the employee shall be the basis for considering the application for compassionate appointment....
The right to compassionate appointment is a concession given under the scheme and is not a source of recruitment. The claim for compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and must ....
Compassionate appointments must be made promptly following a breadwinner's death; delayed applications undermine their purpose.
Compassionate appointment lacks entitlement; eligibility hinges on defined criteria and discretionary nature of policies.
Family pension is a relevant factor in determining financial hardship for compassionate appointment under the West Bengal Central Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post ....
Compassionate appointment is a concession, not a legal right, and requires compliance with specific provisions while emphasizing immediate application to demonstrate need.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.