Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR
Kumar Keshav – Appellant
Versus
Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank, through its Chairman, Ranchi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for compassionate appointment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. interpretation of compassionate appointment scheme. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. acceptance of limitation argument by respondents. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's obligation to consider applications. (Para 7) |
| 5. impugned letters set aside, remand for consideration. (Para 8) |
| 6. disposition of the writ petition. (Para 9) |
ORDER :
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing letter no. 319 dated 01.06.2020 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and letter no. 702 dated 12.10.2022 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of the respondent no. 3 – the General Manager, Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank, Ranchi, whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in view of the applicable scheme of appointment on compassionate ground floated in the erstwhile Vananchal Gramin Bank with effect from 08.03.2019.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s father – Siddheshwar Lal Kunjilwar, while working as Office Assistant in Vana
The court ruled that compassionate appointment requests can be considered even if the employee's death occurred before the scheme's inception, provided the application is made within five years of th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to apply the provisions of the Scheme and the applicable Rules at the time of the claim and its consideration for compassionate appointmen....
FAMILY PENSION - Grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance. The High Court also observed that it is not the case of....
Point of law: compassionate appointment could not be denied on the ground that family benefit scheme was available, in as much as it was not a substitute for compassionate appointment, directed the r....
If giving of an application within one year is held to be mandatory and binding on the applicant in terms of Rule 5, so would be sub -Rule (2) of Rule 6 upon the State and its instrumentalities.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the policy regarding compassionate appointment and the applicability of subsequent amendments to the case of the petitioner.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
