TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court clarifies compassionate appointments criteria, stresses indigence consideration.</h1> <h3>Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Versus B. Kishore</h3> The Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court's decision directing the inclusion of the Respondent's name in the list of candidates for compassionate ... - Issues involved: Interpretation of the scheme of compassionate appointments and eligibility criteria for the same.Summary:The judgment deals with an appeal against a decision of the Madras High Court directing the inclusion of the Respondent's name in the list of candidates for compassionate appointments. The Respondent's wife, a Senior Accountant, passed away, and he sought compassionate appointment. The High Court's decision was based on a misconception as it did not consider the indigence of the deceased employee's dependents, which is a crucial pre-condition for compassionate appointments. The purpose of such appointments is to provide immediate relief to families facing financial distress upon the employee's death. The Supreme Court emphasized that compassionate appointments are an exception and not a source of recruitment, as clarified in the State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar case. The Central Government's instructions highlight the eligibility criteria, including the indigence of the family and suitability of the applicant for the post.The Respondent's case did not align with the revised scheme of compassionate appointments issued by the Central Government in 1998, which emphasized providing assistance to families in financial destitution. The Respondent's employment status and financial struggles did not qualify him as indigent or deserving of compassionate appointment. Additionally, an overlooked fact was the Respondent's age, which exceeded the superannuation age, making his appointment on compassionate grounds or otherwise irrelevant. Consequently, the High Court's order directing the inclusion of the Respondent's name in the list of candidates for compassionate appointments was deemed unsustainable and set aside by the Supreme Court. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
