Back
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
Chairman, Baroda U. P. Bank (Erstwhile Baroda U. P. Gramin Bank) – Appellant
Versus
Jitendra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of respondent's request for appointment (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding eligibility under the compassionate scheme (Para 5 , 7 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. application of revised compassionate appointment scheme (Para 6 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. contestation of the learned single judge's decision (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. court's final decision on the appeal (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT
Heard Shri Prashant Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel representing the appellants/Bank, Shri Om Prakash Pandey, learned Counsel for respondent no.1/writ petitioner and Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned Counsel representing the respondent no.3-NABARD.
2. The present intra Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RULES , 1952, has been filed by the appellants/Bank, wherein they have questioned the judgment and order dated 24.04.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 20885 of 2019 filed by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner. It is the contention of the appellants/bank that the aforesaid writ petition has been allowed and the impugned order dated 08.04.2019, by which application of the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 for compassionate appointment was rejected, has been s
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....
Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a right and must adhere to the governing scheme, especially after an ex-gratia payment has been received.
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 appointment lacks entitlement; eligibility hinges on defined criteria and discretionary nature of policies.
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....
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 conflicting views on the applicability of the Scheme for Appointment on Compassionate ground/Payment of Ex-gratia and the need for a definitive interpretation of Clauses 8.1 and 8.2 of the Scheme....
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
