Legal Reference Library

The High Court of Rajasthan in Uco Bank & Ors. v. Devi Kishan Harijan held that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be allowed if the period of crisis is over for the family of the deceased employee. “In view of the various pronouncements cited above, it is apparently clear that the philosophy behind giving compassionate appointment is just to help the family in harness to get over the immediate crisis by the loss of sole breadwinner. This category of appointment cannot be claimed as a right after lapse of the period when the crisis is over. More so, the financial status of the family is also to be looked into as per the scheme framed by the employer while giving compassionate appointment and such appointment cannot be conferred contrary to the para-meters of the scheme,” the Bench comprising Justice Sangeet Lodha and Justice Deepak Maheshwari observed. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/compassionate-appointment-cannot-allowed-period-crisis-family-deceased-employee-...

A Punjab and Haryana high court bench has said that women should be given preference over men in compassionate appointments, when both are born of public servants dying in harness. The high court bench of justice Rajiv Narain Raina, while dismissing the plea of a Hoshiarpur youth, said able-bodied men should be left to fend for themselves in the country today in the war of attrition fought daily in the employment market and in court. “This special provision is meant to secure chastity of the weaker sex and that they are not driven to red-light areas, to put it bluntly,” justice Raina said. The petitioner had argued that he was denied the job on the wrong premise as the facts recorded in his case were wrong. He had three sisters while it was recorded while denying the job that he had two elder brothers and a sister. “It makes little difference as to the numerical strength of members of the family while dealing with a case of compassionate appointment. when we talk of rights of childr...

1)Madras Inst.Of Dev. Studies & Anr vs K. Sivasubramaniyan & Ors on 20 August, 2015, CIVIL APPEAL No.6465 OF 20152) 2)Dr. G. Sarana vs. University of Lucknow & Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 585 3)Madan Lal & Ors. vs. State of J&K & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 486 4) Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla 5) Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576 6) Ramesh Chandra Shah and others vs. Anil Joshi and others, (2013) 11 SCC 309 20. The question as to whether a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection can turn around and question the method of selection is no longer res integra.              We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to go into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview raise even his little finger...