Allahabad Court May 1999 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.
Liaqat Ali Vs. Mukhya Adhishashi Adhikari, Bhadohi Vikas Pradhikaran a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1997; (1999)2UPLBEC1412
B.K. Sharma, J. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The Mukhya Adhishashi Adhikari. Bhadohi Vikas Pradhikaran, Bhadohi, respondent No. 1, invited applications for registration and allotment of residential houses to be built, by means of an advertisement in newspaper. Consequently, the petitioner moved an application for allotment of a Middle Income Group house and made deposit of registration amount of Rs. 6,000, and allotment amount of Rs. 4,000, with the respondent No. 1. The approximate price of the house was stated to be Rs. 30,000, at that time.However, there was provision in the rules framed about the registration for enhancement of the price. The petitioner was allotted a house on 7th January, 1987. On 9th November, 1987, the respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner that the price of the house had increased to Rs. 65,920. Thereupon the petitioner and certain other similarly situated persons filed writ petitions before this Court. The writ petition filed by th...
Rajendra Yadav Vs. Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2123
S.R. Singh, J.1. Petitioner herein is aggrieved by orders dated 25.4.1996 and 22.10.1996 passed by the District Inspector of Schools.Deoria and the Regional Deputy Director of Education respectively.2. The facts of the case lie in a short compass. Sri Krishna Inter College, Ashrarn Barhi. Deoria is a recognised and aided intermediate college. A vacancy in class IV post occurred in the college due to retirement of permanent incumbent Shri Teju. The Principal of the college by his letter dated 28.2.1995 sought the permission of the District Inspector of Schools to make appointment in the vacant post. The District Inspector of Schools, it seems, did not respond to the request of the Principal. Accordingly, by another letter dated 30.8.1995. the District Inspector of Schools was again requested to grant permission to make appointment in the vacant class IV post but the District Inspector of Schools again did not pay any heed to the request of the Principal who again wrote another letter da...
Hemendra Swaroop Bhatnagar Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dehr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2230
Yatindra Singh, J. 1. Is there vacancy if the sub-tenant leaves the premises? Who is entitled to have his release application considered first : the landlord owner or the Chief tenant? These are the questions involved in these two writ petitions. This is how they arise.FACTS 2. There is big house situate at 38, Lytton Road, Dehradun. Sri H.S. Bhatnagar is the owner of the same (the landlord owner for short). A part of this is occupied by him and a part by Dr. Diwan Singh as his tenant (the Chief tenant for short). Dr. Diwan Singh let out a part of the portion in his tenancy to one Sri B.M. Puri (the sub-tenant for short). The landlord-owner says this was some time in 1968 without obtaining any permission from the landlord or the District Magistrate. The chief tenant does not agree. He says it was some time in the year 1960 after taking permission from one Data Ram, brother of the mortgagee of the property at that time. The Chief-tenant further says that subsequentlythe land lord-owner ...
Manzoor Ali Vs. Deputy Secretary, U.P.S.E.B. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2470
D.K. Seth, J.1. Mr. H. C. Singh.learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of suspension dated 16th September, 1998 contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition on various grounds. He has also prayed that he should be paid 2/3rd subsistence allowance.2. After hearing Mr. Singh and Mr. S. P. Mehrotra, counsel for therespondents, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order of suspension. Inasmuch as the order of suspension itself indicates that by vigilance department, charge-sheet has been already filed in some offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, it might be a case of suspension pending criminal investigation. Whatever might be the situation, I am not inclined to enter into the merits of the case at this stage. It appears that there are sufficient reasons to suspend the petitioner for the time being. It is always in the discretion of the respondents to continue or not to continue the same. This Court can only interfere unless it is shown th...
Smt. Saroj Devi Vs. State of U. P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2443; (1999)2UPLBEC1404
M. Katju, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. The petitioner is a widow with four small children. The petitioner's husband died in harness on 4.5.1998 and she has claimed appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules.3. Learned standing counsel has submitted that no appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules can be given to the petitioner in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Rani Devi, JT 1996 (6) SC 646. He has invited our attention to paragraph 8 of the said judgment in which it has been held that the casual or ad hoc appointee cannot be given benefit of the G.O. dated 31.10.1985. I have carefully perused the aforesaid decision and, in my opinion, it is distinguishable. The petitioner's husband was not a purely casual or ad hoc employee. He was a temporary appointee who had worked against a substantive vacancy from 18.4.1987 and had worked for more than 11 years. The decision of the Supreme Court applied to a case of ...
Kishore Singh Vs. State Bank of India, Kanpur and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2620; [2000(85)FLR854]; (1999)3UPLBEC1763
D.K. Seth, J.1. Similar question was involved in the case of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33231 of 1992, Mukesh Kumar Sharma v. SeniorDivisional Mortager. Life Insurance Corporation of India and another, disposed of by this Court on 5th May, 1999. In the said case, it was held that the provision for grant of appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules does not create a right to appointment but a right to be considered on the background of the question of destitution of the family on account of such death. The Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs.) and another. (1994) 2 SCC 718. supports the above view. In the said case, it was further held that marriage of a son does not exclude him from the membership of the family. In the present case also, the question is governed by the scheme for appointment of dependent of deceased employee on compassionate ground as contained in Chapter 2 of the Hand Book on Staff Matters Vol. II. The d...
Punni and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4641
B.K. Sharma, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 29-11-1980 passed by Sri Sanwal Singh, the then VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah in S.T. No. 406 of 1978 State v. Punni and 5 others, whereby he convicted the accused-appellants Punni, Munshi, Saligram, Sultan, Ram Murti and Ram Bharose of the offence under Section 399, I.P.C. and sentenced seven of them to undergo R.I. for a period of 4 years, convicted each of one them of the offence under 402, I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of 2 years and further convicted each one of them of the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of 6 months and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. Heard counsel for the parties.3. The prosecution story, briefly stated, was that on 15-10-1977, when Ram Charan Singh S.O. and Gaya Prasad, A.S.I. posted at police station Sikanderpur Vesh, District Etah, were together in the circle, the S.O. received in...
Suresh Chandra Gupta Vs. District Magistrate, Tilhar, Shahjahanpur and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1999; (1999)2UPLBEC1137
D.K. Seth, J. 1. The petitioner has been reverted from the post of Daftari to the post of peon by an order dated 11.5.1999 contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition. This order has since been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Subodh Kumar. He contends that the Impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity and that opportunity is mandatory in view of Rule 5 (1) of the U. P. Municipal Boards Service (Inquiry. Punishment and Termination of Service) Rules. He further contends that the ground mentioned in the order of reversion is wholly mala fide and non est and that no order has been passed in the case of Sri Jan Mohammad by which the petitioner could be reverted. On these grounds, he prays that the impugned order should be quashed.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Subodh Kumar at length.3. Rule 5 (1) of the U. P. Municipal Boards Service (Inquiry. Punishment and Termination of Service] Rules are applicable in respect of ...
Ram Lakhan Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Varanasi and Oth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1993; [1999(82)FLR918]; (1999)2UPLBEC1226
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 16th July, 1988 passed by the Presiding Officer. Labour Court, U. P. Varanasi, respondent No. 1, contained inAnnexure-17 to the writ petition, and the order dated 3rd July. 1975 passed by the Assistant Regional Manager. U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Varanasi, respondent No. 4 contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of conductor and to pay his salary accordingly.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was selected on the post of conductor by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). He joined his duties in May. 1974, but all of sudden, an order was passed on 3rd July, 1975, by respondent No. 4 striking off the name of the petitioner from the waiting list. The petitioner made repres...
Lajja Ram Vs. U.P. State Tribunal and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2155
M. Katju, J.1. In this case on 15.4.1997, learned standing counsel was granted three week to file counter-affidavit but although morethan two years have expired, no counter-affidavit has been filed. Hence, I treat the allegations made in the petition to be correct and dispose of this petition.2. The petitioner was Constable in the U. P. Police. He has challenged the impugned orders dated 20.12.1992. 30.4.1994 and 17.2.1997, Annexures-9, 10 and 14 to the petition. By order dated 20.12.1992 the petitioner's services was dismissed on the ground that while his wife Smt. Savitri was alive, he married one Smt. Yashoda as a second wife and hence violated Rule 7 of the relevant Service Rules. Against the dismissal order, the petitioner filed appeal and revision and both have been dismissed, hence this writ petition.3. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Surjit Kaur v. Garja Singh, AIR 1994 SC 135, that for a valid marriage, the customaryceremonies have to be alleged and proved, and merely...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »