T.S.THAKUR, R.BANUMATHI
CANARA BANK – Appellant
Versus
M. MAHESH KUMAR – Respondent
JUDGMENT
R. BANUMATHI, J.
Common question of law falling for consideration in these civil appeals is whether the dependant family members of the deceased employee of the appellant-Canara Bank were entitled to seek compassionate appointment on the basis of ‘Dying in Harness Scheme’ which was passed Vide Circular No.154/1993 w.e.f. 8.05.1993. The claim is resisted by the Canara Bank on the ground that the financial condition of the family members of the deceased employees is good and that the Scheme dated 8.05.1993 has been replaced with scheme dated 14.02.2005 (H. O. Circular No.35/2005) scrapping the provision of compassionate appointment and in lieu thereof introduced the new scheme of ex-gratia payment.
2. In Civil Appeal No.260/2008, the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam vide its Order dated 24.08.2006 in Writ Appeal No. 1313/2003 (B) titled as Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar directed the bank to reconsider the claim of the claimant-M. Mahesh Kumar within two months from the date of order. Further, due to the pendency of SLP against the decision dated 24.08.2006 in Writ Appeal No.1313/2003(B), the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala also dispo
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana
Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Madhusudan Das
State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali
State Bank of India v. Jaspal Kaur
State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar
Sushma Gosain v. Union of India
MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh
State of Manipur v. Md. Rajaodin
Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar
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.