STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. PARKASH CHAND
LAWS(SC)-2019-1-90
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: HIMACHAL PRADESH)
Decided on
January 17,2019
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Appellant
VERSUS
PARKASH CHAND
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL ANIL MALIK VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]GOVIND PRAKASH VERMA VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. ASHWINI KUMAR TANEJA [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. SOMVIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MUMTAZ YUNUS MULANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SHASHANK GOSWAMI [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER VS. KUNTI TIWARY [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. SURYA NARAIN TRIPATHI [REFERRED TO]
CANARA BANK VS. M. MAHESH KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
CHAIRMAN,STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI VS. V.MALLIKARJUNA [LAWS(APH)-2021-9-5] [REFERRED TO]B. NAGALAKSHMI VS. BRANCH MANAGER [LAWS(APH)-2024-1-54] [REFERRED TO]
PURENDRA KUMAR SINHA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-9-29] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH VS. MADHURI SHARMA [LAWS(CHH)-2022-4-84] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH VS. UMESH THAKUR [LAWS(CHH)-2023-6-42] [REFERRED TO]
ENGLESH KUMAR SORI S/O LATE SHRI JAGDISH RAM DHRUW VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-2-7] [REFERRED TO]
CANARA BANK VS. AJITHKUMAR G.K. [LAWS(KER)-2019-11-55] [REFERRED TO]
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT VS. KARUNAKARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2020-10-171] [REFERRED TO]
DEBAJIT GOGOI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-5-22] [REFERRED TO]
V.MALLIKARJUNA VS. CHAIRMAN [LAWS(APH)-2021-4-23] [REFERRED TO]
PURENDRA KUMAR SINHA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-1-38] [REFERRED TO]
NEERAJ KUMAR UKE VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-12-66] [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF BARODA VS. BALJIT SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2023-6-10] [REFERRED TO]
DUBBA SRAVAN VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-7-50] [REFERRED TO]
SHOBHA DEVI VS. JODHPUR VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-1-53] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYANKA SHRIMALI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-9-81] [REFERRED TO]
AMAN KUSHWAHA VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(CHH)-2023-7-55] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. BHUVANESHWARI V.PURANIK VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-12-8] [REFERRED TO]
R. VINOTH VS. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK [LAWS(MAD)-2021-6-95] [REFERRED TO]
MEENA SIDAR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF C.G. VS. KEVRA BAI MARKANDEY [LAWS(CHH)-2022-2-85] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN BANK VS. PROMILA [LAWS(SC)-2020-1-17] [REFERRED TO]
SANAD KUMAR SHYAMLE VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-6-74] [REFERRED TO]
NILIMA RAJU KHAPEKAR VS. BANK OF BARODA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-4-231] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal arises from a judgment of a Divison Bench of the High Court dated 6 October 2015.
(3.)The father of the respondent who was working as a Peon in the Revenue Department of the State, died on 4 January 1997, while in service. On the date of the death of his father, the respondent was a minor. He attained the age of majority on 17 November 2002. The policy of compassionate appointment framed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, inter alia, contains a stipulation that where none of the children of a deceased government employee have attained the age of majority at the time of the death of the employee, an application can be submitted on the attainment of the age of twenty one years by the eldest child. This provision is contained in paragraph 8 of the policy dated 18 January 1990. The application submitted by the respondent upon attaining the age of majority was processed, but was eventually rejected on 25 April 2008 on the ground that the brother of the respondent is already in the service of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board. The fact that the brother of the respondent is employed with a State undertaking is not in dispute.
(2.)This appeal arises from a judgment of a Divison Bench of the High Court dated 6 October 2015.
(3.)The father of the respondent who was working as a Peon in the Revenue Department of the State, died on 4 January 1997, while in service. On the date of the death of his father, the respondent was a minor. He attained the age of majority on 17 November 2002. The policy of compassionate appointment framed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, inter alia, contains a stipulation that where none of the children of a deceased government employee have attained the age of majority at the time of the death of the employee, an application can be submitted on the attainment of the age of twenty one years by the eldest child. This provision is contained in paragraph 8 of the policy dated 18 January 1990. The application submitted by the respondent upon attaining the age of majority was processed, but was eventually rejected on 25 April 2008 on the ground that the brother of the respondent is already in the service of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board. The fact that the brother of the respondent is employed with a State undertaking is not in dispute.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.