9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the consideration of appointment on compassionate grounds u/s prevailing scheme, eligibility criteria based on family income, and the interpretation of relevant legal precedents. Appointment on Compassionate Grounds: - Respondent filed application for appointment on compassionate grounds, rejected due to family income exceeding specified limit. - Tribunal directed reconsideration of the case, leading to appeal before High Court and subsequently to Supreme Court. - Appellants argued that appointments must adhere to scheme parameters, making ineligible those with family income above prescribed limit. - Compassionate appointment not a matter of right, but an exception to provide for sudden financial crisis in deceased employee's family. - Citing legal precedents, Court emphasized the need to consider financial condition of deceased employee's family for compassionate appointments. Interpretation of Legal Precedents: - Court referred to Govind Prakash Verma case, stating that family pension and terminal benefits should not be grounds for refusal of compassionate appointment. - Relying on Punjab National Bank case, Court reiterated the need to follow rules and regulations for compassionate appointments based on family's financial condition. - Mentioning Mumtaz YunusMulani case, Court emphasized adherence to scheme criteria regarding terminal benefits for eligibility in compassionate appointments. Scheme Parameters and Family Income: - Circular by Comptroller and Auditor General of India specified income limits for compassionate appointments based on group categories. - Appellants rejected Respondent's case due to family receiving terminal benefits exceeding prescribed limit. - Court upheld rejection, as family income surpassed &8377; 3 lakhs, rendering Respondent ineligible for Group 'C' post. - Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and impugned judgments/orders were set aside.
|
