State of Jharkhand and ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar Etc. and anr.

State of Jharkhand and ors. vs Ashok Kumar Etc. and anr.

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Jharkhand Decided Mar 01, 2007

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/517254

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/517254
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: M.Y. Eqbal and; D.K. Sinha, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 01, 2007
Subject: Civil;Service
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A.No.59/1988] Section 166; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, A.K. Gohil & S. Samvatsar, JJ] Application for compensation for personal injury Death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons Held, Claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. Claim will not survive to ...

Key legal issue: Civil;Service
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of Jharkhand and ors.

Respondent

Ashok Kumar Etc. and anr.

Legal References

Cases Referred: See State of Jharkhand and Ors. v. Redhey Shyam Prasad Singh
Reported In: [2007(3)JCR223(Jhr)]

Excerpt

- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant.order1. since these appeals arose out of the common judgments passed in w.p. (s) nos. 1881/05, 5569/05, 6683/ 05, 722/04, 723/04, 793/04, 786/04, 669/04, and 725/04, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. these appeals have been directed against the judgment passed by the learned single judge in the aforesaid writ petitions wherein the order of termination of services of the petitioners respondents were challenged. the learned single judge after considering the entire facts of the case, and also following the judgment passed in w.p. (c) 5705 of 2003, allowed the writ petitions and quashed the order of termination and directed re-instatement forthwith.3. the main question that was involved in those writ petitions was as to whether the order of termination on the ground of ex parte inquiry can be sustained in law particularly when the petitioners-respondents have been continuing in services for 15-20 years.4. similar question was decided by the learned single judge in w.p. (s) no. 5705 of 2003 by judgment dated 29.10.2004. the said judgment was challenged by the appellant-state of jharkhand by filing l.p.a. no. 489 of 2005. see state of jharkhand and ors. v. redhey shyam prasad singh 2007 (2) jcr 223 (jhr). the said appeal was heard by this bench and by a reasoned judgment dated 26.2.2007 the aforesaid appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the learned single judge was affirmed. in our view, therefore, the same question of law is involved on the same sets of facts against the same inquiry. these appeals stand dismissed following the points decided in l.p.a. no. 489 of 2005. appeals dismissed

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. Since these appeals arose out of the common judgments passed in W.P. (S) Nos. 1881/05, 5569/05, 6683/ 05, 722/04, 723/04, 793/04, 786/04, 669/04, and 725/04, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. These appeals have been directed against the judgment passed by the learned single Judge in the aforesaid writ petitions wherein the order of termination of services of the petitioners respondents were challenged. The learned single Judge after considering the entire facts of the case, and also following the judgment passed in W.P. (C) 5705 of 2003, allowed the writ petitions and quashed the order of termination and directed re-instatement forthwith.

3. The main question that was involved in those writ petitions was as to whether the order of termination on the ground of ex parte inquiry can be sustained in Law particularly when the petitioners-respondents have been continuing in services for 15-20 years.

4. Similar question was decided by the learned single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 5705 of 2003 by judgment dated 29.10.2004. The said judgment was challenged by the appellant-State of Jharkhand by filing L.P.A. No. 489 of 2005. See State of Jharkhand and Ors. v. Redhey Shyam Prasad Singh 2007 (2) JCR 223 (Jhr). The said appeal was heard by this Bench and by a reasoned judgment dated 26.2.2007 the aforesaid appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the learned single Judge was affirmed. In our view, therefore, the same question of law is involved on the same sets of facts against the same inquiry. These appeals stand dismissed following the points decided in L.P.A. No. 489 of 2005. Appeals dismissed

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2007 Same Parties State of Jharkhand and ors. vs Ashok Kumar Etc. and anr. Same Subject Civil;Service Same Judge M.Y. Eqbal and; D.K. Sinha, JJ.

Civil;Service