Allahabad Court November 2001 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.
Munney and anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1541
J.C. Gupta, J.1. By the judgment and order dated 26-2-1980 passed by the then Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Sessions Trial No. 108/1979 the appellants named above have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. Appellant Sarwar has been further convicted and sentenced to a period of three years' R.I. under Section 307. I.P.C.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that Abdul Gaffar Qureshi, father of deceased Iqbal Farooq Ahmad had purchased a house situated in Mohalla Guiyan Talab. Absconding accused Sakhawat was a tenant in that house. Abdul Gaffar Qureshi obtained a decree for ejectment of Sakhawat from that house and in execution of the decree, Sakhawat was evicted on 16-10-1978 and his movables were attached by the Court Amin on the same day and they were given in the custody of Mohammad Jama Khan, PW-1. The attached property was kept by the Custodian, Mohammad Jama Khan in the same house. On account of evict...
Dori Lal Gangwar Vs. Director, State Education Research and Training B ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC41; [2002(92)FLR201]; (2002)1UPLBEC568
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned standing counsel representing the respondents. 2. The only point argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that according to the advertisement petitioner, who has put in 17 years of service in the defence services, applied for appointment as B.T.C. teacher has not been granted the relaxation of upper age limit taking into account the service rendered in the defence services, for which he is entitled. He has been granted only three years of age relaxation in upper age limit without further giving him the benefit of the services rendered as are available to Ex-Army personnel. The respondents have given the relaxation only to the extent of three years as are available to disabled ex-Servicemen. Petitioner does not claim relaxation in this category of disabled ex-Servicemen, his claim is conferred only to the tune of services rendered in army as are available to ex-army personnel. 3. In vi...
Prem Chandra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC303
M. Katju and Kama] Kishore, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel also.2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 6.11.2001, Annexure-16 to the petition.3. We have perused the impugned order. By that order, the work of Dy. Commandant General has been taken away from the petitioner and was given to some one else. There is no allegation that the petitioner's service has been terminated or that he has been suspended or that he has been reduced in rank or his salary has been reduced. In our opinion, an employee cannot Insist that he must be given work. An employee is entitled to get his salary and other allowances but no employee can insist that work be given to him.4. No doubt in P. K. Chinnaswamy v. Govt, of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2988 SC 78, it has been held that a Government servant should be givenwork, commensurate to his status. However, this decision cannot be said to have laid down any absolute principle that a Government employee must be given...
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Umesh Chandra Joshi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC323
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the U. P. Public Service Tribunal dated 2.2.1993. The respondent No. 1 was a purely temporary employee. It is settled law that a temporary employee has no right to the post. There is nothing to show that the respondent No. 1 was regular appointee appointed after a regular selection. Hence, he cannot, claim to be continued in service.3. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent No. 1 was not given a written order of termination, and thiswas one of the grounds given by the Tribunal for allowing the claim petition. We are of the opinion that a termination order can be oral, particularly in respect of temporary/ casual or ad hoc employees. Learned counsel for the respondent then submitted that one month's notice pay was not given. It is settled law that even if one month's notice or notice pay was not given, the termination order would not become il...
Thadani Leasing Vs. Allahabad Patrika Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-2001
Reported in: [2002]111CompCas754(All)
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. This company petition was filed by M/s. Thadani Leasing, a partnership firm, carrying on their business at Mayfair Building, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Lucknow, having its registered office at 3, Nehru Road, Cantonment, Lucknow, as a creditor's winding up petition to wind up M/s. Allahabad Patrika Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, of which the registered office was shown in the petition to be situate at Patrika House, 10, Admonston Road, Allahabad.2. Notices were issued on February 5, 1996, giving opportunity to the company. A counter-affidavit of Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari was filed. It appears that during the pendency of the winding up petition, some settlement was arrived at between the parties in pursuance of which some amount due was paid over by the respondent-company to the applicant-company. However, that settlement was not fully honoured and that still the entire debt has not been discharged. An Application No. 76952 of 2000 (A-12) was filed on September 10, 2000, stating that...
Sita Ram Vs. Basic Education Board, Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC58; [2002(92)FLR229]; (2002)1UPLBEC806
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed that the respondents may be directed to appoint the petitionerunder Dying-in-Harness Rules, in place of his father who died in the year 1983. Petitioner for the first time made an application in the year 1998. Admittedly, petitioner filed application after delay of 15 years. No explanation has been given by the petitioner for delay in filing the application. Petitioner has also not stated that there is no earning member in his family. 2. In this view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.Petition is dismissed, being devoid any merit. ...
Mahesh Chandra Shukla Vs. Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Shasan, Nagar Vikas ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC2; [2002(92)FLR11]; (2002)1UPLBEC727a
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel who accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. 2. Petitioner by means of this writ petition has challenged an order of suspension dated 30.8.2001, which is pending disciplinary enquiry and directing that the petitioner shall beattached to the office of the District Magistrate, Badaun during the period of suspension. The only ground for challenge as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that neither in the report of the task force referred to in the order nor from any prima facie material, petitioner can be said to be involved in the works which has been subject-matter of the enquiry as a result of which petitioner has been suspended. It is further contended that the order of suspension demonstrates complete non-application of mind. Next contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the preliminary enquiry Stage, notices were issued to the p...
Pramod Kumar Badal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC200
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P. K. Sharma appearing for the respondents 2 and 4 as well as learned standing counsel for the State.2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents for the purpose of making appointment on the post in question in Basic Primary School in view of the Judgment dated 28.8.1998 passed in the Writ Petition No. 30711 of 1997 providing the benefits of the reservation to it being a backward class candidate or in the alternative on the post of Vyayam Visharad. The Judgment relied upon by the petitioner, namely, passed in Writ Petition No. 30711 of 1997, which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The said Judgment has been disposed of finally by a Division Bench of this Court vide its Judgment dated June 11, 2000, which reads as under:'The Writ Petition No. 30711 of 1997 from which the aforesaid special appeal has arisen and all...
Raghubansh Behari Lal Vs. U.P. Public Services Tribunal No. 1, Lucknow ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC363; [2002(92)FLR620]; (2002)1UPLBEC724
D. S. Sinha and Lakshmi Bihari,JJ.1. Heard Sri Rakesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at length and in detail. Sri V. N. Agrawal, learned standing counsel of the State of U. P., representing the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, has also been heard.2. The order and judgment dated 18th July, 1988 passed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal No. 1, Lucknow, the respondent No. 1, upholding the order dated 9th July. 1983, purporting to terminate the services of the petitioner as Collection Amin, is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. It is not disputed that the petitioner was a temporary employee and his services were liable to be terminated under the provisions of the U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975.4. Before the respondent No. 1, the order of termination was challenged by the petitioner as being punitive, and also as being discriminatory inasmuch as juniors to him were allowed to co...
Committee of Management, Adarsh Inter College, Basti and anr. Vs. Dist ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC211; (2002)1UPLBEC289
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned standing counsel representing the State.2. This writ petition has been filed by the committee of management with the prayer that respondent No. 1, District Inspector of Schools may be directed to take decision in accordance with the provisions of Section 16G (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the committee of management suspended respondent No. 2, namely. Hari Shanker Shukla, the acting principal of the institution concerned vide its resolution dated 3.7.2001 and submitted the requisite papers, according to the averment made in the writ petition, on 4.7.2001. More than 60 days have passed, but no decision has been taken as yet by the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioner apprehends that in view of the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 6 of the Act, the District Inspector of Schools may pass the order that since ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »