The petitioner challenged the CAT's order denying compassionate appointment due to a delay of nine years between the father's death and the application. This Court upheld the CAT's decision, dismissing the writ petition.
The writ petition is dismissed with no direction in favour of the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
0603wp1017.12.odt
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.1017 of 2012.
Jayesh V.Kulkarni ..vs.. Union of India and others.
=-=-==-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Court's or Judges Order Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr. V.B.Bhise, Adv. for the petitioner.
C ORAM: S.A.BOBDE AND
P. B.VARALE, JJ.
DATED : 6th MARCH, 2012.
2
0603wp1017.12.odt
and ors. ..vs.. Sajad Ahmed Mir (2006 SCC (L & S) 1195), Sushma Gosain ..vs.. Union of India (1989(4) SCC 468 and Umesh Kumar Nagpal ..vs.. State of Haryana (1994)(4) SCC 138 that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to give immediate succor and relief to the family who is shocked by the sudden death of the sole bread earner of the family and that it is not necessary to say “goodbye” to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interest of several other ignoring the mandate of Article 14.
JUDGE JUDGE.
chute
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in law by declining to grant the petitioner compassionate appointment due to delay.
Whether the petitioner's delay bars him from obtaining immediate succor under compassionate appointment rules.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of J and K v. Sajad Ahmed MirRelied on¶16
State of J and K and ors. vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir (2006 SCC (L & S) 1195) · Who else cites this
Sushma Gosain v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶16
Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India (1989(4) SCC 468) · Who else cites this
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of HaryanaRelied on¶16
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana (1994)(4) SCC 138 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jayesh V. Kulkarni
Union of India
others
S.A.Bobde
P.B.Varale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
