Allahabad Court August 1998 Judgments

Kripa Shankar Agnihotri Vs. State of U.P. and Another

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1998(3)AWC2175

B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ. 1. The prayer of petitioner is to command the Regional Transport Officer, Kanpur Nagar (Respondent No. 2} to issue registration in regard to his Three Wheeler Tempo within a specified short time.2. It is asserted by the petitioner that after taking loan from the Punjab National Bank, he purchased a Three Wheeler Tempo, applied for grant of registration but despite expiry of 1-1/2 months by now without any rhyme or reason no registration certificate is being issued.3. Sri T. M. Rizvi learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, submitted that in the facts and circumstances the desired relief be granted to petitioner,4. We do not think that the expiry of 1-1/2 months is such that it will give us a handle to exercise our powers to issue a high prerogative writ like mandamus. We. accordingly dismiss this writ petition, however, reminding the authority concerned that it is expected of him that he will perform his statutory duties expeditiously and in acc...

Krishna Murari Agarwal Vs. Prescribed Authority/A.C.J.M., Mainpuri and ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1998(3)AWC2366

J.C. Gupta, J.1. Heard petitioner's counsel.2. This is tenant's writ petition directed against the order dated 18.4.98 passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting the petitioner's prayer for summoning witnesses for cross-examination. Against this order the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No. 2 which was not maintainable and has been dismissed as such.3. Apart from the fact that this writ petition has been filed with a great delay whereby the order made in the month of April. 1998 is being challenged, it is further to be found that the order impugned has been made at an interlocutory stage of the proceedings. While rejecting the said application, the Prescribed Authority has observed that he did not think it necessary to summon the witnesses for cross-examination. It is well settled that proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) are of a summary nature and for that reason, it has been specifically provided by Section 34 (1) (b) that evidence in such cases is receivable on a...

Piyush Tripathi Vs. Chairman/Chief Managing Director, Fertilizer Corpo ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1998(4)AWC35; [1999(81)FLR125]

M. Katju, J.1. The petitioner has claimed appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules. It appears that the petitioner's father was an employee of the Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited which is a distinct legal entity and is not the Government. It is settled law that a company registered under the Indian Companies Act is a distinct legal entity and it is not the Government. A limited liability Company is different from its shareholders.2. Hence, the Dying-in-Harness Rules will not automatically apply to the Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able be show me any Rule or Government Order by which the Dying-in-Harness Rules have been made applicable to the Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs....

Rameshwar Singh Pal Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1998(3)AWC2392; [1998(80)FLR834]

D.K. Seth, J.1. It is alleged in the letter dated 12th January, 1998 that the petitioner used to stay outside the headquarter without any leave and permission and that after coming back, he forces his signature on the Attendance Register. He also deliberately flouts the orders of his superiors. On these grounds, he was asked to explain his conduct within a week with the condition that in default, disciplinary proceedings would be initiated against him. By letter dated 29th July. 1998, contained in Annexure-2A, the respondents had stopped salary of the petitioner on the ground that no reply to the letter dated 12th January, 1998, has been given by the petitioner.2. In case, disciplinary proceeding is contemplated, it is open to the respondents to suspend the petitioner in contemplation of domestic enquiry. But there is no provision for stopping salary on the ground that reply has not been given, particularly when in the letter dated 12th January, 1998. It was stipulated that in default,...

Dhurendra Deo Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(4)AWC3363; (1999)3UPLBEC2302

V.M. Sahai, J.1. In Shiv Charan Inter College, Bulandshahr, a duly recognised institution governed by the provisions of U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act, 1982, a vacancy arose due to retirement of its Principal on 30.6.92. The petitioner being the senior-most lecturer was appointed on 1.7.92 as ad hoc Principal. District Inspector of Schools attested his signature on 7.7.92. He continued to work as such. The management intimated the vacancy of the Principal to U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (in brief commission) which advertised the same. The Commission on 30.1.97 held the interview for the post of Principal, respondent No. 5 was selected. Thepetitioner has challenged the selection mainly because the names of the two senior-most teachers along with their character roll, etc. was not sent as required by the rules.2. I have heard Shri G. K. Stngh learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Arun Tandon learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 and Mi...

Dr. B.C. Sikroria and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad

1. This is an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 for a declaration that the fixation of pay of Small Industries Promotion Officer (which is later referred as SIPO) at Rs. 1640-2900 under IV Central Pay Commission is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory, is liable to quash government order dated 17th December, 1987 (Annexure-1), for a mandamus directing the respondents to keep the applicant at par with the other category of employees who were under the pay scale of Rs. 550-900 under the IIIrd Central Pay Commission scale and have now been placed in the scale of Rs. 2000-3200 or Rs. 2000-3500 with a direction for all consequential benefits, 2. Respondents have stated in respect of application paras 4(1) to 4(13) that need no reply, being matter of record. About para 4(15), 4(17) and paras 6 and 7 of the application need no reply. The applicant's case in brief is that while implementing the scale provided by IV Central Pay Commission, the Government of I...

Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karmchari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad

1. This is an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to quash the order dated 3.1.96 passed by respondents and to direct them to consider the applicant No. 2 for promotion to the post of Guard Mail/ Express, to direct the respondents to restructure the entire seniority list of Izzat Nagar Division of Class III employees in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court with effect from 10.02.95. 1. Respondent No. 8 Shri Shyam Babu (Private respondent) has neither filed any counter affidavit nor has appeared before the Tribunal. 2. The official respondents No. 1 to 7 have not denied the following facts: (a) The applicant No. 1 is an Association of the Railway employees of all categories and grades being registered under the Trade Union Act, having registration No. 11 of 1978. The Association belongs to non-SC and ST employees of Railways with its head office at Ajmer which is being represented by Shri M.K. Chaturvedi, duly elected Secretary, the Associati...

Har Bhajan Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad

1. This is an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for order/direction for setting aside/quashing the orders nos. (Ka/255/ 8/Karkhana (IX) dated 12.11.1990 passed by the General Manager (Personnel) Gorakhpur, communicated by the Chief Work Shop Manager (Personnel) Izatnagar letter No. (Ya/Ka/ 255/1/Super dated 26.11.90 (Annexure-1) and letter No. (Ka/255/8/Karkhana (IX) dated 15.3.91) passed by the General Manager (P) Gorakhpur as communicated by order No. 57 letter No. Ya/Ka/210/1 chargeman 'A' dated 23.1.91 (correctly 22.3.91 (Annexure-2, order or direction to respondent no. 1 and 3 for fixation of the applicant's pay and seniority of cadre of Chargeman 'B' (Rs. 1400/- --2300/-) with effect from 10.11.76 or 1.7.74 to reinstate the applicant to the post of chargeman cadre 'A' (Rs. 1600/- --2600/-) with retrospective effect, to pay the difference of salary grade of Rs. 1400/- --2300/-) and (Rs. 1600/- --2600/-) with effect from 15.3.1991 till reinstat...

Jag Lal Prasad Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(1)AWC224

Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. Thepetitioner after his initial appointment as a clerk was promoted on 3.2.1983 as Sales Supervisor Grade-I and was confirmed there on 16.7.1984. On 3.10.1986 thepetitioner made representation for his further promotion a5 he completed three years' service and no other scheduled tribes candidate was available. Upon a further representation by the petitioner, the respondents sent reply dated 28.8.1990 slating that the promotion was strictly on merit and Promotion Committee upon consideration of all available cases, promoted the respondent No. 4, Sri K. K. Srivastava and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that a junior had been promoted superseding the petitioner does not enable the petitioner to obtain relief. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the promotional order dated 10.7.1990 and for commanding the respondents to promote the petitioner as Sales/Commercial Manager with seniority higher than the respondent No. 3.2. Two counter...

Dr. D.S. Chaudhary Vs. Ivth Additional District Judge, Meerut and Othe ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(1)AWC289

J.C. Gupta, J.1. The dispute relates to shop No. 151/2, P. L. Sharma Road, Beghum Bagh, Meerut. By the order dated 27.4.1993 of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (R.C. and E.O.), the said shop was declared vacant. The landlady on 24.5.93 made an application for the release of the shop in her favour showing her need for the same. This application was kept pending for months together until the petitioner also arrived at the scene on 16.8.1998 by moving application for allotment. He contested the release application of the landlady, filed his objection and also adduced evidence and in real sense participated in the proceedings relating to the disposal of release application. By the order dated 20.3.1995 the R.C. and E.G. after taking into consideration the petitioner's objections and evidence, rejected the release application of the landlady and on the same day, he proceeded to allot the disputed shop in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the landlady challenged both the orders of t...