SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(P&H) 536

M.M.KUMAR, RAJAN GUPTA, RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Krishna Kumari – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner(s), (in CWP Nos.7276, 11330 of 2008 and 18600 of 2009):
Mr. Mahavir Singh Sandhu, Advocate.
For the Petitioner, (in CWP No.4303 of 2009):Mr. Dilbagh Singh, Advocate.
For the Petitioner (in CWP No.14689 of 2008):Mr. Anand Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the Petitioner (in CWP No.1570 of 2007):Mr. T.C. Dhanwal, Advocate.
For the Petitioner (in CWP No.5335 of 2009):Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate.
For the Petitioners (in CWP No.14875 & 14894 of 2009):Mr. Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate.
For the Petitioner (in CWP No.20536 of 2009):Mr. S.K. Monga, Advocate.
For the Petitioners:Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, Mr. Kartik Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Inder Pal Goyat, Advocate.
For the Petitioner (in CWP No.6247 of 2009):Mr. Rajesh Sheoran, Advocate.
For the Petitioner (in CWP No.8113 of 2011):Mrs. Ritam Aggarwal, Advocate.
For the Petitioner (in CWP No.8070 of 2011):Mr. Jitendra Nara, Advocate.
For the Petitioners (in CWP No.16193 of 2011 and CWP No.11521 of 2010):
Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Petitioner (in CWP No.12717 of 2009):Mr. Bhoop Singh, Advocate.
For the Petitioner (in CWP No.930 of 2011):Mr. Yashwinder Paul Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State in all the cases:Mr. Hawa Singh Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Haryana

JUDGMENT

Mr. Rajan Gupta, J.: - This order shall dispose of a bunch of writ petitions* which have been preferred by various petitioners. However, the facts have been referred from CWP No.4303 of 2009.

2. The question of law, which has been referred to this Full Bench for decision is as regards the rules which would be applicable to government employees who seek compassionate appointment whether it would be the rules in operation at the time of death of the employee or the rules applicable on the date when case is considered by the appropriate authority. In view of conflicting views by various Division Benches, the case has been referred to the Full Bench.

3. Some facts necessary for decision of the case are being noticed here:

4. Petitioner’s husband, who had been working as Junior Engineer in Haryana Irrigation Department, expired on 23rd February, 1995. On 5th May, 1995, she moved an application to respondent department for providing employment on compassionate grounds to her only son namely, Manoj Kumar, who at that time was seven years old. A letter was thereafter addressed from the Superintending Engineer, Narnaul requesting that a post be kept reserved for the minor child of













































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top