Supreme Court limits Die-in-Harness Scheme to regular govt employees, not work-charged ones or dependents. The Supreme Court held that the Die-in-Harness Scheme for compassionate appointments in Manipur applies only to regular government employees, not ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Supreme Court limits Die-in-Harness Scheme to regular govt employees, not work-charged ones or dependents.
The Supreme Court held that the Die-in-Harness Scheme for compassionate appointments in Manipur applies only to regular government employees, not work-charged employees or their dependents. The High Court's decision to allow appointments for dependents of deceased work-charged employees under the Scheme was overturned. Dismissal of a special leave petition does not establish binding precedent. The judgments directing consideration for appointment under the Scheme were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. No separate judgments were delivered by the judges in this case.
Issues involved: The judgment deals with the issues related to appointment on compassionate grounds under the Die-in-Harness Scheme framed by the Government of Manipur.
Appointment on Compassionate Grounds: - The Die-in-Harness Scheme was initially framed by the Government of Manipur to provide appointment to dependents of deceased government servants. - The Scheme was modified through corrigendum and revised later to specify eligibility criteria and application deadlines. - The Scheme was revised to clarify that it is applicable only to regular government employees and not to work-charged, ad hoc, or casual appointees. - The High Court allowed writ petitions seeking appointment under the Scheme for dependents of deceased work-charged employees, contrary to the revised Scheme. - The Supreme Court held that confirmation of a work-charged employee does not change their status, and the Scheme does not apply to work-charged employees or their dependents. - Dismissal of a special leave petition does not imply acceptance of the lower court's decision, and such dismissal does not establish binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution. - The judgments of the High Court directing consideration for appointment under the Scheme were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.
Separate Judgement by Judges: - No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
