Allahabad Court January 1998 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Vinod Kumar Singh Vs. Director of Ayurvedic Avam Unani Sewa, U.P., Luc ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1183; (1998)2UPLBEC1447
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. The petitioner came to this Court for commanding the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to allow him to work as Pharmasisl in the Hospital in question and payment of salary with a contention that he had been transferred by an order dated 21.7.95 from Chandpur/Pilibhit to Mau. The said transfer order at Annexure-1 to the writ petition shows that the same was a mass transfer order wherein the petitioner's name is at serial No. 39. The petitioner contended that accordingly he handed over charge at Pilibhit and was relieved therefrom on 28.9.95 and he submitted his joining report at Mau on 4.10.95. It has been alleged in the writ petition that although the post was lying vacant there at Mau, the respondent did not allow the petitioner to work.2. As in the aforesaid writ petition on 18.10.95, no interim order was passed and the respondents were granted time to file counter-affidavit, on 6.2.96 when the respondents did not file counter-affidavit, the matter was considered and in...
Mahimanand Negi Vs. District Panchayat Raj Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1998
Reported in: (1998)2UPLBEC916
S.R. Singh, J.1. Heard Sri J.P. Gupta appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State Authorities.2. The petition is directed against notice dated 26.12,97 whereby the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Uttar Kashi convened a meeting of the Gram Panchayat Matari Vikas Khand Naugaon for consideration on the motion of no-confidence brought against the petitioner under Section 14 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. the thrust of the submission made by Sri Gupta is that the written notice of Intention to move motion of no-confidence against the petitioner was not signed by the members of the Gram Panchayat. It is urged by the learned Counsel of the petitioner that since the written notice of intention to move no-confidence was not signed by the members of the Gram Panchayat the District Panchayat Raj Officer had no Jurisdiction to convene the meeting. The meeting, it is stated, has already taken place on 19th January, 1998 but the result has not yet been decla...
Ajit Kumar Sen Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1998
Reported in: (1998)2UPLBEC1152
S.H.A. Raza and Bhagwan Din, JJ.1. The petitioner was initially appointed on 20.7.1970 in the Department of Chemistry as Lecturer in Ewing Christian College, Allahabad. The scale was revised from time to time and. on 7.1.1976 date 7.1.1976 petitioner's salary was revised to the scale of Rs. 300-600/- and he was placed at Serial No. 51 in the list of lecturers of the College. The scale was again revised w.e.f. 20.7.1983 from Rs. 700-1600/- to the scale of Rs. 1200-1300-60-1900/-. The petitioner was also granted selection grade on 9.9.1982. In the month of November, 1989 without any intimation to him and without calling for any show-cause notice or opportunity to the petitioner, an order was passed to the effect that the increment given to the petitioner on 14.7.1974 ought to have been on 6.11.1974 and the increment which ought to have been given in the month of July, 1989 was ordered to be given w.e.f. 6.11.1989. On the pay roll of the college, it was written that from the salary of the...
Bishambhar Dayal Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4170
P.K. Jain, J.1. Heard Sri K.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A.2. Since in the above-mentioned two criminal appeals common question of facts and law are involved, hence they are disposed by a common judgment.3. Appellant Bishambhar Dayal has appealed against the judgment and order dated 31-3-1980 passed by the then 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai in S.T. No. 245 of 1977 convicting the appellant under Section 7(i), 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentencing him to undergo RI for 5 years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI of one year. In Criminal Appeal No. 723 of 1980 appellant Bishambhar Dayal has appealed against the judgment and order dated 31-3-1980 passed by the Then 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai in S.T. No. 240 of 1970 convicting the appellant under Section 7(i), 16(i)(a) of the Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for...
Justice (Retd.) S.N. Saxena Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC747
S.H.A. Raza and Bhagwan Din, JJ.1. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the sanction of payment of balance amount of leave encashment has not been received by the petitioner.2. In the case of Union of India v. Gurnam Singh, AIR 1982 SC 1265, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a retired Judge of the High Court is entitled to the payment of the cash equivalent of leave salary in respect of the period of earned leave at his credit on the date of his retirement in accordance with the provisions of Rule 20B of the All India Services (Leave) Rules. 1955 read with Rule 2 of the High Court Judges Rules, 1956.3. On 18.2.1983. the Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi accordingly issued an order dated 18.2.1983 addressed to the Chief Secretaries of State Governments. Registrars of all High Courts, Registrar of Supreme Court, New Delhi, etc. for payment of cash equivalent of unutilised earned leave standing to the credit o...
Jawahir Singh Vs. Election Commission of India and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC836
Palok Basu and D.K. Seth, JJ.1. Jawahir Singh has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayers that :(i) quash order dated 28.8.97 issued by the Election Commission of India (Annexure-1). (ii) a mandamus should go commanding respondents to issue appropriate direction to all the Returning Officer of the State to ignore the direction contained in order dated 28.8.97 (Annexure-1) while deciding objection at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers and a further direction not to reject any nomination of a candidate who has been convicted but his appeal is pending and he is enlarged on bail in the course of elections to the Lok Sabha, etc., (iii) declare Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 ultra vires the Constitution. 2. Shri Sandip Saxena has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents, namely, Election Commission of India and the Union of India.3. Shri P. M. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed the Cir...
Narendra Singh Chauhan Vs. Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna University, Srinaga ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1077; (1998)2UPLBEC1377
S. H. A. Raza and Bhagwan Din, JJ.1. The Selection Committee of the University recommended a panel of four persons for the post of Lecturer in the Department of Commerce of the respondent-University. The petitioner was placed second in the panel while Shri R. S. Pandey (respondent No. 3) was placed at Serial No. 4 by the panel.2. The Exectutive Council approved the appointment of the petitioner. Later on Shri R. S. Pandey (respondent No. 3) preferred a representation to the Chancellor under Section 68 of the State Universities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Although the said representation was not very much pressed but the Chancellor in exercise of his powers under Section 68 of the Act, exercising suo motu powers passed an order to the effect that the petitioner of this writ petition did not come within the field of eligibility criterion in accordance with Statute 11.01 framed under the Act and ordered the appointment of Shri R. S. Pandey (respondent No. 3) as the Lecturer ...
Hazari Lal Vs. Deputy Director (Consolidation), Firozabad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1122
Sudhir Narain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 11.3.1997, allowing the revision filed by respondent No. 4.2. The dispute relates to allotment of chaks. The Consolidation Officer carved out chaks of the parties. The petitioner was given chak No. 1574. Respondent No. 3 was given chak No. 1539 and respondent No. 4 was given chak No. 1469. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation in appeal allotted three chaks to the petitioner on 21.12.1995. The petitioner filed Revision No. 248 against this order. Against the same order respondent No. 4 filed Revision No. 243. Revision of the petitioner was dismissed on 8.7.1996 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The revision of respondent No. 4 was decided on 11.3.1997, whereby the revision was allowed and the Deputy Director of Consolidation made certain amendment in the chaks of the petitioner and respondent No. 4. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition,3. I ha...
Miss Manjushri Prakash Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1998
Reported in: AIR1998All188
ORDER1. Heard Shri Murlidhar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Shri V. M. Sahai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Shri N. C. Rajvanshi, learned Senior Advocate representing the respondent No. 4.2. From the averments made in the writ petition it appears that the petitioner was allotted plot No. R-9/50 in Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. By notice dated 27th January, 1987, a copy whereof is Annexure-2A to the writ petition, the petitioner was informed that the allotment in her favour has been cancelled. It appears that after cancellation of the allotment of the plot in favour of the petitioner it was allotted in favour of Shri A. K. Kansal, the respondent No. 4, and lease deed dated 27th March, 1987 was executed by the Ghaziabad Development Authority in his favour.3. The petitioner prays that this Court may issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice dated 27th January,...
Munna Lal Yadav Vs. Commanding Officer, 388 D.S.C. Platoon, Central Or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1998
Reported in: (1998)1UPLBEC581
D.K. Seth, J.1. The writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 30.10.1996. By means of the present review application, the said order has been sought to be reviewed on the ground that there was an error apparent on the face of the record with regard to the fact as has been recorded in the order in paragraphs 8 & 9 that the petitioner did not request for his own discharge, though in fact the petitioner had so requested for his discharge. The second ground that was taken was that the Army cannot play with the career of an army personnel by using a back door method in discharging the petitioner when on the facts alleged the petitioner should have been subjected to Section 41 of the Army Act for the alleged disobedience. The third point that was taken that the order was signed by the Lt. Col. Who was not authorised to do so and the same ought to have been signed by a Brigadier in view of Army Rule 36 and as such the notice dated 14.4.1988 was wholly without jurisdiction. It was fourth...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »