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>Compassionate Appointments Are Not Automatic Rights; Must Follow Schemes, Criteria, Says SC</h1> <h3>MGB Gramin Bank Versus Chakrawarti Singh</h3> The SC allowed the appeal, setting aside previous judgments that upheld a directive for compassionate appointment. The Court reiterated that compassionate ... - The Supreme Court considered an appeal against a judgment upholding a directive for compassionate appointment under a scheme. The deceased's family member sought compassionate appointment after the death of a Class III employee. The Court emphasized that compassionate employment is not a right but an exception to alleviate financial distress. The Court cited Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, emphasizing the purpose of compassionate employment to assist the family during a crisis. The Court highlighted that compassionate employment should not be viewed as an alternative recruitment method and that delayed applications may not be entertained.Additionally, the Court referenced A. Umarani v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, stating that appointments made in contravention of established schemes/rules are illegal. The Court defined 'vested right' as a fixed, accrued, settled, or absolute right not contingent on any condition precedent. The Court cited State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar, emphasizing that eligibility for compassionate appointment depends on various factors, including financial conditions. The Court concluded that the impugned judgments were unsustainable in law and allowed the appeal, directing the respondent to apply under the new scheme for consideration within three months.In summary, the Court clarified the principles governing compassionate appointments, highlighting that such appointments are not automatic rights and must adhere to established schemes and eligibility criteria. The Court set aside the previous judgments and directed the respondent to apply under the new scheme for proper consideration within a specified timeframe.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
