ABHISHEK KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Appellant was entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds as per rules existing at the time of his father's death in 2001; refusal by District Magistrate was not valid as the appellant could be appointed anywhere within the State and the High Court erred by applying 2003 Rules retrospectively.
- Parties
- Appellant: Abhishek Kumar; Respondents: State of Haryana and Ors.
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 04 December 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment After Appeal From High Court Order
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed, High Court judgment set aside.
- Legal Topics
- Appointment on Compassionate Grounds, Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Abhishek Kumar
Appellant
State of Haryana and Ors.
Respondents
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment After Appeal From High Court Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether appellant was entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds under rules existing prior to 2003 rules
- 2 Effect of absence of vacancy in the district for compassionate appointment
Ratio Decidendi
Appellant was entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds as per rules existing at the time of his father's death in 2001; refusal by District Magistrate was not valid as the appellant could be appointed anywhere within the State and the High Court erred by applying 2003 Rules retrospectively.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed, High Court judgment set aside.
Orders
- Department of Personnel, State of Haryana directed to issue appointment letter posting the appellant to any post within the State as per his original seniority within four weeks from receipt of order.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment