//
archives

letters patent

This tag is associated with 3 posts

appointment on compassionate ground = The claim of the respondent was earlier rejected on the ground that, the family had adequate financial status and the amount of pension being given was actually over and above the limit fixed by the appellant issuing the guidelines. Subsequently, when the case was reconsidered upon the direction of the court, it was found that the respondent did not meet the requisite eligibility criteria i.e., 10th standard certificate. Admittedly, the respondent is 8th standard fail, and thus, he can be considered only as 7th standard pass and we must therefore consider, whether he could have been offered appointment to a Class IV post. 13. Clause 9 thereof, provides that no relaxation in educational qualification(s) for the purpose of giving compassionate appointment to the dependant(s) of a deceased employee, would be permissible. However, such relaxation can be granted if there exists some requirement of minimum qualification(s) with respect to the said post. Clause 11 thereof, provides that a dependant can, in fact, be given appointment on compassionate ground, on the basis of the pass marks obtained by him in the new Secondary School Certificate and in view thereof, as respondent No.1 is admittedly only 8th standard (fail), he is therefore, ineligible for the post. Even otherwise, if the direction of the High Court is complied with and the case is considered as per the un-amended provisions in existence prior to 2005, the financial limits fixed therein, would automatically be applicable. His application dated 11.5.1999 reveals that his date of birth is 1.3.1976, and further that he has studied only upto the 8th standard (fail). 14. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that since 1991, the eligibility criteria for a Class IV post was set as, the passing of the 10th standard, and as the said respondent had been unable to pass even the 8th standard, he was most certainly, not eligible to apply for the said post. In view of the law referred to hereinabove, it is neither desirable, nor permissible in law, for this court to issue direction to relax the said eligibility criteria and appoint respondent No.1 merely on humanitarian grounds. 15. Thus, the question framed by this Court with respect to whether the application for compassionate employment is to be considered as per existing rules, or under the rules as existing on the date of death of the employee, is not required to be considered. 16. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order impugned herein is set aside. No order as to costs.

Reportable   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6468 OF 2012   State of Gujarat & Ors. ..Appellants Versus Arvindkumar T. Tiwari & Anr. … Respondents       J U D G M E N T   Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against … Continue reading

Apex court condoned the 10 years delay in filing ..= In our opinion, in view of the facts narrated by us, the High Court has erred in rejecting the Letters Patent Appeal on the ground of delay and latches on the part of the appellant in approaching the court nearly after 10 years of passing the impugned order. 16) The High Court has also rejected the Letters Patent Appeal, on the ground that the wives of the original declarant Gelabhai had no right over the land and, therefore, they could not have executed any Will in favour of the applicant bequeathing the lands in question. This reasoning of the Division Bench of the High Court is also not correct in view of the orders passed by Mamaltdar, who had recognized the rights of the wives of the original declarant, who had died during the pendency of the proceedings before him and that finding has become final, since the respondents have not questioned the same before any superior forums. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the High Court, with a request to 11

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7365 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 11281 of 2006)   Haribhai Lakhmanbhai Seedhav ……….Appellant Versus State of Gujarat & Ors. ……..Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7366 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 11368 of 2006) Bhavanbhai Lakhmanbhai Seedhav ……….Appellant … Continue reading

As per Order XXV, Rule 9 of Original Side Rules, in any case where Probate or Letters of Administration is for first time applied for after the lapse of three years from the death of the deceased, the reason for the delay shall be explained in the Petition.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:          14.09.2011 CORAM THE HON‘BLE MRS. JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN O.S.A.NO.324 OF 2010 Dr.R.A.Venkatesan … Appellant Vs. 1.D.Jenbagalakshmi 2.D.Uma Rani 3.D.Renuka Devi 4.T.Ramasamy Nadar 5.P.Jayapandian Nadar … Respondents Original Side Appeal is filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,902,760 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,908 other subscribers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com