Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1885 - HC - Indian LawsAppointment of the petitioner in the category of died-in-harness - financial hardship - rejection of appointment of the petitioner on the basis that the income of the family of the deceased was more than the initial gross salary of the Group - "D" staff at the material point of time - Held that:- In the case of Shashank Goswami [2012 (5) TMI 810 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the Apex Court had deliberated on the matter at hand and had come to a conclusion that the appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The Supreme Court, in the case of Sundeep Kumar Bafna -v- State of Maharashtra [2015 (8) TMI 724 - SUPREME COURT], held that when two mutually irreconcilable decisions by the Supreme Court are cited at the Bar, the High Court should follow the view laid down by the earlier judgement as the latter judgement which was delivered without consideration of the previously pronounced judgement by a Bench of co-equal or larger strength should be read as per incuriam. In the instant matter, it is to be noted that the District Inspector had rejected the application of the petitioner on the basis that the family pension received by the petitioner is exceeding the salary of the Group D staff post at the relevant point of time. This fact remains undisputed and the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the Rules, 2009 either. It logically follows that the petitioner is bound by these Rules, 2009 and has to be eligible for appointment in consonance with the Rules, 2009. The petitioner cannot claim appointment on compassionate grounds if he is ineligible to receive such appointment by the Rules, 2009 - In order to compute family income, the D.I. of Schools considered the provisions contained in Schedule V and, more importantly, the explanation that categorically defines the expression 'financial hardship' (provided above). The impugned order passed by the D. I. of Schools is in accordance with the definition of 'financial hardship'. There are no reason to interfere with the order passed by the D.I. of Schools, which is in accordance with Schedule V of the Rules, 2009 - application dismissed.
|