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.
U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam Sanyukt Karmachari Sangh Vs. U.P. State Bridge C ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2065; (1999)IILLJ1219All; (1999)2UPLBEC1157
D.K. Seth, J.1. In these cases a very simple but an interesting question is raised. The question as to whether, termination of service under Clause L-2-12 of the certified Standing Order of U. P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. on the abandonment of service on account of unauthorised absence for more than consecutive 13 days during the period when admittedly the workmen were on strike, though might be illegal, could be sustained2. While opposing the proposition Mr. V. B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing with Sri Narendra Mohan, learned counsel had sought to support the said question through different questions of law based on admitted facts. On the other hand, Shri N. C. Rajvsnshi ably assisted by Shri Arun Gupta, learned counsel for respondents had similarly raised various questions of law on admitted facts.3. The facts in these cases are not in dispute. Those are in brief as follows :in writ petition No. 36071 of 1995, services of 168 workmen wereterminated by an ord...
Arunesh Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2101
V. M. Sahai, J. 1. The question of law that arises for consideration in this petition filed by a class IV employee is whether a person appointed against a vacant post till further orders could be restrained or prevented from working/attending office without any order2. The petitioner was appointed on 7.6.90 on daily wages on the post of waterman. He was transferred from Kanpur to Jhansi in September, 1991. On 14.11.91, he was appointed on the vacant post of class IV on a fixed salary of Rs. 750 p.m. His appointment was to continue till further orders. The petitioner made a representation that he has been working satisfactorily, therefore, he may be regularised. In the last week of February, 1994, the Bhoomi Sanrakshan Adhikari, suddenly, without any reason did not permit the petitioner to attend and sign the attendance register. The petitioner approached this Court and filed this petition in the first week of March, 1994 and claimed that he was High School and was appointed against a v...
Rabendra Kumar Singh Vs. Superintending Engineer, Electricity Distribu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2157; (1999)2UPLBEC1230
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner was given appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules by an order dated 2nd February. 1999 contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition. It contained a condition that the petitioner should produce his certificate relating to his educational qualifications. Subsequently, his appointment was cancelled by an order dated 6th March, 1999 which is Annexure 5 to the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was unable to produce the certificate relating to his educational qualification.2. Admittedly, the petitioner is an Intermediate. He was given appointment in the post of Routine Grade Clerk. There was a regulation being the U. P. State Electricity Board Ministerial Establishment (Office of the Chief Engineer and other Subordinate Offices) Regulations, 1970 which had since been amended on 22nd April, 1998. For the post of Routine Grade Clerk, the qualification in the said Regulations was prescribed as Graduate with knowledge of typing and computer as is...
Ram Singh Vs. Managind Director, U.P. Co-op. Federation, Lucknow and O ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2154
D.K. Seth, J. 1. The petitioner alleges that he was suspended and subjected to a disciplinary proceeding which ultimately resulted into termination of his service. The petitioner has challenged the said order in Writ Petition No. Nil of 1994wherein an interim order was granted staying the operation of the order dated 24.7.1993. The said writ petition is still pending. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has claimed that he may be paid salary due from 24.1.1994 to 15.7.1996 and suspension allowance for the period between 14.7.1991 and 24.7.1993 and also to pay annual Increment and decide his representation.The question of subsistence allowance if not already paid can be decided in the pending writ petition. The question of payment of full salary is dependent on the outcome of the decision in the pending writ petition. Unless the order of termination is set aside, there is no question of payment of full salary for the period after 24.7.1993, viz., the date of termination. The ...
Manna Prasad Jaiswal Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and Oth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2343; (1999)2UPLBEC1197
N.K. Mitra, C.J. 1. The question that surfaces for consideration in this appeal is as to what are the parameters of adjudging a teacher as 'unfit' for the purposes of ad hoc promotion under Section 18 of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards Act. 1982.2. Matrix of the facts beyond the pale of controversy is that one Sri Raghubans Singh, a permanent lecturer in Acharya Ram Chandra Shukla Inter College. Saron, district Deoria, retired from service on 30th June, 1996. The appellant and respondent Shambhu Nath Rao, the two permanent teaches in L.T- grade staked their respective claims for adhoc promotion in place of Sri Raghubans Singh. it would appear that the matter suffered procrastination inasmuch as neither the Committee of Management of the institution nor the District Inspector of Schools took any decision in the matter and, therefore, the appellant herein knocked the door of this Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37699 of 1996 which cam...
Samad Khan Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1896
Binod Kumar Roy and D. R.Chaudhary, JJ.1. Since these five writpetitions, which have been heard together, and in which the different petitioners, who all claim themselves to be residents of C.K. 66/3, Benia Bagh, Varanasi. have come up with common prayers, namely, (i) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering with their freedom and right to live in India and not to deport or extradite him from India and (ii) commanding the respondents not to harass or curtail their liberty by insisting them to attend the police station, we dispose of these writ petitions by this common order.THE FACTS :2. Samad Khan, petitioner of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11136 of 1999, asserts, inter alia, that he was born on 25.12.1974. out of wedlock of Zalil Khan and Sabita Khan, at 76/8, Linton Street, Calcutta, West Bengal. India appending a photo copy of his birth certificate issued by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation as Annexure-1 ; he has been living in India...
Sheo Prakash Mishra, Civil Judge Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allah ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2026
M. Katju and Krishna Kumar,JJ.1. Heard Shri Murlidhar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sunil Ambwani. learned counsel for High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The petitioner is the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mirzapur.2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned adverse entry awarded to the petitioner by the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge of this Court for the year 1995-96, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which has been approved by the Administrative Committee.3. In paragraph No. 2 of the writ petition, it is mentioned that there is no earlier adverse entry against the petitioner regarding his judicial work. Even for the year 1995-96, the District Judge, Mirzapur recommended a 'good' entry to the petitioner. However, the Hon'ble inspecting Judge has passed the following entry :'The outturn of work given by him is 112.79 per cent, but this has been achieved by applying shortcuts. In fact he is a great work-shirker. Though h...
Ram Pal Singh Vs. Regional Manager, P.N.B., Moradabad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2088; [1999(82)FLR969]; (2000)ILLJ225All; (1999)2UPLBEC1477
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner has been suspended some time in 1993. It is alleged that a criminal case is pending out of the same prosecution. Mr. R. K. Kakkar, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks parity with another person who was also involved in the transaction and was similarly suspended has since been reinstated after revoking the order of suspension. The petitioner has also applied for revocation of the order of suspension. The respondents did not decide the petitioner's application for revocation of suspension. He submits that one of the co-delinquents has since been released from the order of suspension, on the doctrine of parity, the petitioner should also be released from the suspension. Therefore, he prays that the order of suspension should be quashed.2. Shri Tarun Verma, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that there cannot be any concept of parity inrespect of revocation of suspension if there are grounds for distinguishing the involveme...
Brahm Dutt Sharma Vs. Commanding Officer, Ist U.P. Bt., N.C.C. and Oth ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2452
D.K. Seth, J.1. By an order dated 5th September, 1998, the petitioner has been relinquished of his Commission. This order has since been challenged in this writ petition. Mr. N.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post next but despite his willingness, he has not been allowed to attend the refresher course and, thereby, he has been denied of his promotion. On the other hand, he has been relinquished from the Commission illegally. Therefore, the order contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition should be set aside. He further contends that this order was passed since the petitioner had not returned a sum of Rs. 2,500 within 7th November. 1997, though it was so refunded on 9th November, 1997.2. Mr. Uma Kant, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that the petitioner did not perform his duties and that he did not attend the refresher course and had also informed by his letter dated 20th Octob...
Kuldeep Chand Kapoor Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1999
Reported in: (1999)2UPLBEC1437
M. Katju and Krishna Kumar, JJ.1. Heard Sri R.G. Padia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.R. Maurya, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 26-6-1998 (Annexure 6 to this writ petition) by which the respondent No. 4 has been promoted as Head of the Department of Composing in Northern Regional Institute of Printing Technology, Allahabad.3. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Graphic Design on 19-7-1972 whereas the respondent No. 4 was appointed as lecturer in Photo engraving on 7-8-1982 i.e. he is more than 10 years junior to the petitioner.4. The relevant rule for appointment to the post of Head of the Department of Composing in Northern Regional Institute of Printing Technology, Allahabad is given in Annexure 3 to this writ petition. The criteria for promotion is given in the U.P. Technical Education Gazetted Officers Service Rules, 1990 and in the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »