.....and date of appointment of the petitioner, in spite of recommendation for promotion to the post of block welfare officer in the promotion committee, order of promotion in favour of petitioner could not be issued. in this regard, vide letter dated 06.08.1997, district welfare officer, hazaribag sent information to director, welfare department, government of bihar, patna relating to date of birth and appointment date of the petitioner. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of such communication, the welfare department, govt. of bihar (respondent no.6) again sent a letter dated 29.01.1998 to deputy director, welfare department, hazaribag giving reference to earlier letter dated 10.12.1993 asked again the same information only with a motive to evade his promotion even knowing fully well that petitioner is going to retire in the year 1998 itself. it has further been submitted that even after retirement, the petitioner made several request by way of submitting representation for grant of promotion but till date no action has been taken.5. referring to the reply/rejoinder filed by petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner retired on.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....training, such an employee is entitled to the benefit of a.c.p. scheme retrospectively on completion of 12/24 years of service, irrespective of the fact whether he had acquired such a training within 12/24 years or not. in the state of jharkhand, the benefit is to be granted from the cut-off date i.e. 09.08.1999 or after 4 completion of 12/24 years of service whichever is later. the stand of the respondents to deny the benefit of a.c.p. from the cut-off date on the ground of acquiring training later in the lime is not justifiable. this writ petition, accordingly, succeeds and impugned order dated - 25th july, 2005 is hereby quashed to the extent it denies benefit of the a.c.p. to the a.s.i.s of the wireless department with effect from the date of completion of 12/24 years of service or cut of date i.e. 9.8.99. accordingly, respondents are directed to grant benefit of the a.c.p. scheme with effect from the cut-off date as provided under the a.c.p. scheme or completion of 12/24 years which ever be later.”7. as a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and observations, i hereby direct the respondent-authorities to consider the cases of the petitioners for grant of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to as ‘the act of 2003’), is sustainable. the appeals have, therefore, been heard together and are being disposed by a common order. 2 2. the facts, for better appreciation, shall be culled out from civil appeal nos.10792-10794 of 2011. the sales tax assessment of the respondent, for the assessment year 1998-99, was completed and refund ordered on 12.05.2000, under the act of 1973. subsequently, the former act was repealed by the act of 2003 on 01.04.2003. a show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 07.06.2004 regarding the refund ordered earlier, in exercise of suo-moto revisional powers under section 40 of the act of 1973. by order dated 12.07.2004, the respondent was held liable for recovery of rs. 65,35,632/-.3. the order for recovery having been challenged by the respondent before the high court, it was held that resort to section 40 of the act of 1973, after coming into force of the new act on 01.04.2003 was unsustainable, as the repeal and saving clause in section 61 of the act of 2003, saved only pending proceedings under the former. since there were no proceedings pending against the respondent under the repealed act, on the relevant date, the proceedings.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to as ‘the act of 2003’), is sustainable. the appeals have, therefore, been heard together and are being disposed by a common order. 2 2. the facts, for better appreciation, shall be culled out from civil appeal nos.10792-10794 of 2011. the sales tax assessment of the respondent, for the assessment year 1998-99, was completed and refund ordered on 12.05.2000, under the act of 1973. subsequently, the former act was repealed by the act of 2003 on 01.04.2003. a show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 07.06.2004 regarding the refund ordered earlier, in exercise of suo-moto revisional powers under section 40 of the act of 1973. by order dated 12.07.2004, the respondent was held liable for recovery of rs. 65,35,632/-.3. the order for recovery having been challenged by the respondent before the high court, it was held that resort to section 40 of the act of 1973, after coming into force of the new act on 01.04.2003 was unsustainable, as the repeal and saving clause in section 61 of the act of 2003, saved only pending proceedings under the former. since there were no proceedings pending against the respondent under the repealed act, on the relevant date, the proceedings.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to as ‘the act of 2003’), is sustainable. the appeals have, therefore, been heard together and are being disposed by a common order. 2 2. the facts, for better appreciation, shall be culled out from civil appeal nos.10792-10794 of 2011. the sales tax assessment of the respondent, for the assessment year 1998-99, was completed and refund ordered on 12.05.2000, under the act of 1973. subsequently, the former act was repealed by the act of 2003 on 01.04.2003. a show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 07.06.2004 regarding the refund ordered earlier, in exercise of suo-moto revisional powers under section 40 of the act of 1973. by order dated 12.07.2004, the respondent was held liable for recovery of rs. 65,35,632/-.3. the order for recovery having been challenged by the respondent before the high court, it was held that resort to section 40 of the act of 1973, after coming into force of the new act on 01.04.2003 was unsustainable, as the repeal and saving clause in section 61 of the act of 2003, saved only pending proceedings under the former. since there were no proceedings pending against the respondent under the repealed act, on the relevant date, the proceedings.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to as ‘the act of 2003’), is sustainable. the appeals have, therefore, been heard together and are being disposed by a common order. 2 2. the facts, for better appreciation, shall be culled out from civil appeal nos.10792-10794 of 2011. the sales tax assessment of the respondent, for the assessment year 1998-99, was completed and refund ordered on 12.05.2000, under the act of 1973. subsequently, the former act was repealed by the act of 2003 on 01.04.2003. a show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 07.06.2004 regarding the refund ordered earlier, in exercise of suo-moto revisional powers under section 40 of the act of 1973. by order dated 12.07.2004, the respondent was held liable for recovery of rs. 65,35,632/-.3. the order for recovery having been challenged by the respondent before the high court, it was held that resort to section 40 of the act of 1973, after coming into force of the new act on 01.04.2003 was unsustainable, as the repeal and saving clause in section 61 of the act of 2003, saved only pending proceedings under the former. since there were no proceedings pending against the respondent under the repealed act, on the relevant date, the proceedings.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to as ‘the act of 2003’), is sustainable. the appeals have, therefore, been heard together and are being disposed by a common order. 2 2. the facts, for better appreciation, shall be culled out from civil appeal nos.10792-10794 of 2011. the sales tax assessment of the respondent, for the assessment year 1998-99, was completed and refund ordered on 12.05.2000, under the act of 1973. subsequently, the former act was repealed by the act of 2003 on 01.04.2003. a show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 07.06.2004 regarding the refund ordered earlier, in exercise of suo-moto revisional powers under section 40 of the act of 1973. by order dated 12.07.2004, the respondent was held liable for recovery of rs. 65,35,632/-.3. the order for recovery having been challenged by the respondent before the high court, it was held that resort to section 40 of the act of 1973, after coming into force of the new act on 01.04.2003 was unsustainable, as the repeal and saving clause in section 61 of the act of 2003, saved only pending proceedings under the former. since there were no proceedings pending against the respondent under the repealed act, on the relevant date, the proceedings.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of rs. 40 lakhs. 2 4. having regard to the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel based on the notification dated 24.01.2017 issued under section 24(1) of the bihar prohibition and excise act, 2016, we are of the view that the matter needs to be finally decided by the high court expeditiously. therefore, we dispose of these appeals with a request to the high court to dispose of the main writ petition, being criminal writ jurisdiction case no.627 of 2017 expeditiously and preferably within six weeks from today. we make it clear that it will be open to the 5. respondents, in case they choose so, to amend the pleadings as well within two weeks from today. till the writ petition is disposed of, the implementation of the interim order passed by the high court for de-sealing and releasing of goods shall be deferred. needless also to say that the presence of the 6. officers on account of any non-compliance may not, hence, be required. no costs. new delhi; september 15, 2017. .......................j.[ kurian joseph ]. .......................j.[ r. banumathi ]. 3 item no.50 court no.5 section ii-a s u p r e m e c o u r t o f i n d i a record of proceedings petition for special.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to as ‘the act of 2003’), is sustainable. the appeals have, therefore, been heard together and are being disposed by a common order. 2 2. the facts, for better appreciation, shall be culled out from civil appeal nos.10792-10794 of 2011. the sales tax assessment of the respondent, for the assessment year 1998-99, was completed and refund ordered on 12.05.2000, under the act of 1973. subsequently, the former act was repealed by the act of 2003 on 01.04.2003. a show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 07.06.2004 regarding the refund ordered earlier, in exercise of suo-moto revisional powers under section 40 of the act of 1973. by order dated 12.07.2004, the respondent was held liable for recovery of rs. 65,35,632/-.3. the order for recovery having been challenged by the respondent before the high court, it was held that resort to section 40 of the act of 1973, after coming into force of the new act on 01.04.2003 was unsustainable, as the repeal and saving clause in section 61 of the act of 2003, saved only pending proceedings under the former. since there were no proceedings pending against the respondent under the repealed act, on the relevant date, the proceedings.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to as ‘the act of 2003’), is sustainable. the appeals have, therefore, been heard together and are being disposed by a common order. 2 2. the facts, for better appreciation, shall be culled out from civil appeal nos.10792-10794 of 2011. the sales tax assessment of the respondent, for the assessment year 1998-99, was completed and refund ordered on 12.05.2000, under the act of 1973. subsequently, the former act was repealed by the act of 2003 on 01.04.2003. a show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 07.06.2004 regarding the refund ordered earlier, in exercise of suo-moto revisional powers under section 40 of the act of 1973. by order dated 12.07.2004, the respondent was held liable for recovery of rs. 65,35,632/-.3. the order for recovery having been challenged by the respondent before the high court, it was held that resort to section 40 of the act of 1973, after coming into force of the new act on 01.04.2003 was unsustainable, as the repeal and saving clause in section 61 of the act of 2003, saved only pending proceedings under the former. since there were no proceedings pending against the respondent under the repealed act, on the relevant date, the proceedings.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT