Category: Compassionate Appointment

Service Law – Compassionate appointment – If the monthly income is less than 60% of the total emoluments (which the deceased was drawing at the time of death) less Tax @ 15% (if the income is more than Rs. 10,000/- p.m.) the case for compassionate appointment can be considered

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANK OF BARODA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BALJIT SINGH — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Compassionate appointment – – the gross total income of the family per month comes to Rs. 10,323/- and the net income is Rs. 7,618/- per month – Monthly income so arrived at is not less than 60% of the total emoluments and thus, the case of the respondent cannot be considered on compassionate basis on that score – Order of compassionate appointment set-aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANK OF BARODA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BALJIT SINGH — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

HELD there was no policy existing to govern compassionate appointment to posts under local authorities in the State of West Bengal and hence, in the absence of such a policy, compassionate appointment cannot be granted; second, assuming that there was such a policy, it would be of no redeeming purpose to direct that the applications for appointment on compassionate grounds be considered and decided several years after they were filed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL — Appellant Vs. DEBABRATA TIWARI AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and B.V. Nagarathna,…

Compassionate Appointment – HELD in the facts and circumstances of the case, the department rightly appointed the respondent’s daughter on the post of Assistant Meter Reader considering her qualification at the time of making the application for compassionate appointment.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI JAL BOARD — Appellant Vs. NIRMALA DEVI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal N0. 7047…

Compassionate Appointment – The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased – respondent a married daughter her elder sister application for appointment already dismissed HELD respondent not dependent on her mother so claim for appointment on death of mother rejected.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MS. MADHURI MARUTI VIDHATE (SINCE AFTER MARRIAGE SMT. MADHURI SANTOSH KOLI) — Respondent ( Before…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 – An appointment to the heirs of the employees on their retirement and/or superannuation shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH AHMEDNAGAR MAHANAGAR PALIKA — Appellant Vs. AHMEDNAGAR MAHANAGAR PALIKA KAMGAR UNION — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 236 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 190, 193 and 200 – The appeal challenges a High Court judgment regarding a complaint filed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India against the Ex-Directors of M/s. SBM Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. for offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The primary issue is whether the Special Court established under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013 has jurisdiction to try offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India argued that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings and that offences under the Code should be tried by the Special Court – The respondents contended that the High Court’s judgment was correct and that the Special Court did not have jurisdiction to try the complaint – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Special Court presided by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Code – The Court reasoned that the reference to the Special Court in Section 236(1) of the Code is a ‘legislation by incorporation’ and not a ‘legislation by reference’, meaning subsequent amendments to the Companies Act do not affect the Code – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine that the case is one of ‘legislation by incorporation’ – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration on merits. The judicial opinion emphasizes the importance of legislative intent and the distinction between ‘legislation by incorporation’ and ‘legislation by reference’ in determining jurisdiction.