Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS. versus SMT. A. ONGBI MEMCHA DEVI AND ANR.

Decided
17 April 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1995] 3 S.C.R. 367 · 1995 INSC 268

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 368, margin A

These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment and order dated 22.2.1994 passed in Civil Review Application No. 17 of 1993 in C.R.No. 97of1991 and CR 97/91 of the High Court of Gauhati at its Bench at Imphal. One, A. Raghumani Singh, was appointed in the service of Manipur State and he died in harness. Therefore, his widow Smt. Arambam Ongbi Memcha Devi, was appointed as L.D.C. on 1.1.1974 on compassionate grounds and she was promoted as U.D.C. on October 13, 1981. In 1991, she filed a writ petition in the High Court for direction to appoint her brother-in-law on compassionate grounds. The writ petition was allowed by the High Court in Civil Rule No. 97 of 1991, against which a Review Petition was filed. As stated earlier, the Review Petition was also dismissed. Thus, these two appeals by special leave. Though time was taken for ftling counter by the respondent, no counter has been filed.

p. 368, margin A

The brother is not a dependent of the deceased employee who died in harness. Since on compassionate grounds, the widow has already been appointed and she has been continuing in serviced they cannot claim further employment on the basis of the death of the employee in harness. The High Court was, therefore, not correct.

p. 368, margin D

The appeals are accordingly allowed. The orders of the High Court are set aside. In the facts and circumstances no costs. G.N. Appeals allowed.

p. 368, margin E