Dadan Ram and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Dadan Ram and anr. vs Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Aug 30, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/520615

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/520615
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: Altamas Kabir, C.J. and; R.K. Merathia, J.
Decided On: Aug 30, 2005
Case Number: LPA No. 410 of 2005
Subject: Service

Case Summary

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

- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Articles 12 & 226: [M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J., Narendra Nath Tiwari & D.P.Singh, JJ] Writ petition - Maintainability - Whether State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., is a State within meaning of Article 12 ? - Held, From perusal of relevant Rules of byelaws, it is clear that St...

Key legal issue: Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dadan Ram and anr.

Advocate Sohail Anwar and; Altaf Hussain, Advs.

Respondent

Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Advocate J.P. Gupta and; Shahid Khan, Advs. for respondents No. 2 and 8

Legal References

Reported In: [2006(1)JCR373(Jhr)]

Excerpt

- constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. .....date of receipt of a copy of the order.2. the present, appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioners on the ground that their prayer for stay of the order by which they were allocated to the bihar cadre had not been considered by the learned single judge. accordingly, in the instant appeal an interlocutory application, being i.a. no. 2151/2005, has been filed for stay of a subsequent order passed on 9th august, 2005 issued by the ranchi regional development authority where the appellant no. 2 has been working, relieving the said appellant from his duties in the road construction department of the government of jharkhand, ranchi.3. having considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we dispose of the appeal by directing the concerned respondent to dispose of the pending representations made by the appellants within one month from the date of communication of this order after giving the appellants an opportunity of hearing and till such time, as the representations are not disposed of, the operation of the impugned orders and in particular the order dated 9th august, 2005, being annexure-7 of to the interlocutory application, shall remain stayed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. This matter relates to a case of mutual transfer between one Babulal Ram and Lalit Kumar Ram whose services have been allocated to the State of Jharkhand from Bihar and the appellants herein whose services have been allocated to the State of Bihar. It appears that the said Babulal Ram and Lalit Kumar Ram have agreed to remain in the State of Bihar and have filed representations to the competent authority of the successor State. Since the matter was kept pending by both the State of Jharkhand and State of Bihar, the appellants filed a writ petition, being WP(S) No. 2265/2005, which was disposed of on 11th May, 2005 by the learned single Judge by directing the competent authority of the successor State to dispose of the representations said to have been made by the appellants on 11th April, 2005 and 20th April, 2005 within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

2. The present, appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioners on the ground that their prayer for stay of the order by which they were allocated to the Bihar cadre had not been considered by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, in the instant appeal an Interlocutory Application, being I.A. No. 2151/2005, has been filed for stay of a subsequent order passed on 9th August, 2005 issued by the Ranchi Regional Development Authority where the appellant No. 2 has been working, relieving the said appellant from his duties in the Road Construction Department of the Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

3. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we dispose of the appeal by directing the concerned respondent to dispose of the pending representations made by the appellants within one month from the date of communication of this order after giving the appellants an opportunity of hearing and till such time, as the representations are not disposed of, the operation of the impugned orders and in particular the order dated 9th August, 2005, being Annexure-7 of to the Interlocutory Application, shall remain stayed.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2005 Same Parties Dadan Ram and anr. vs Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Same Subject Service Same Judge Altamas Kabir, C.J. and; R.K. Merathia, J.

Service Interlocutory application Competent authority In particular On behalf of dispose of The State Has been