Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(2)AWC1023
R.B. Misra, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to give appointment on compassionate ground under the U. P. Recruitment of Dependants ofGovernment Servant (Dying-in-Hamess) Rules, 1974 (known as 'Rule 1974' hereinafter) in place of her husband treating to have been died in the course of service.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the State.3. The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of this writ petition are that the husband of the petitioner whose date of birth was 12.10.1966, was appointed as Constable in Civil Police, Jhansi in 1988. He took casual leave on 29.10.1988 for three days but he did not return thereafter. An F.I.R. was lodged on 17.3.1989 on behalf of the father-in-law of the petitioner and after investigation, a final report was submitted on 26.12.1990 wherein the petitioner's husband Balendra Prasad Mishra had been declared missing. The petitioner was legally dependent being wife of Sri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2002)2UPLBEC426
Yatindra Singh, J.1. State of U.P. is holding selection for direct appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector and Platoon Commander in PAC. In this selection initially a preliminary examination is held. Selected candidates have to appear in a physical test and those who qualified have to appear in a written examination and then in the interview. The first two stages are admittedly over. The preliminary examination and physical test have already been held. Now written examination is to be held in different zones on 6th January, 2002. According to the petitioners all of them have qualified in the preliminary examination. Some of them allege that they could not appear in the physical test due to the fault of the respondents; some of them allege that they appeared and were successful yet they were wrongly declared failed in the physical test, hence the present writ petitions.2. I have heard Counsel for the petitioners and Standing Counsel for the respondents. In view of the shortage of time,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(1)AWC615
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.1.1977 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.3. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the dispute relates to Khata No. 169 of village Bhatpurwa Khurd, district Varanasi, for short, the land in dispute. In the basic year, both parties, i.e., the petitioners and Smt. Daulati, widow of Bechan, were recorded over the land in dispute. On the receipt of Form No. 5, issued by the consolidation authorities, the petitioners filed their objections claiming that the land in dispute belonged to them exclusively and that the name of Smt. Daulati was liable to be expunged from revenue papers. It was pleaded that the land in dispute was originally owned by Smt. Mangari, widow of Chauthi, that S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(2)AWC1025b; [2002(92)FLR1226]
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was heard by me on 3rd of January, 2002 and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. I dismissed the writ petition for reasons to be recorded later on. The reasons for the dismiasal of the aforesaid writ petition are as under.2. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows. That petitioner's father Ram Nath, who was an employee of Central P.W.D.. Kanpur and was posted as Waterman, died while in service ; that in view of the circumstances after the death of petitioner's father, petitioner was appointed as a muster role employee on compassionate ground ; that while the petitioner was working as muster role employee, the petitioner's mother, namely, widow of deceased Ram Nath. sought an employment under dying-in-hamess rules and she was appointed under dying-in-harness rules with the employer Central P.W.D., Central Region. Kanpur as peon. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner, who was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002CriLJ1852
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A.2. The trial pending before the Fast Track Court. First Tract does not mean injustice ot the accused. There is a specific direction by this Court by its order dated 3-12-2001 to supply a copy of the statement of the complainant to the accused before framing the charge. The application filed on behalf of the accused that his counsel has gone out to Lucknow in connection with a marriage and will not be available on the date on which the Fast Tract Court is to frame charge. It was also contended as a fact that copy of the statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. of the complainant was not provided to him as yet.3. In the circumstances, the order framing charge ought not to have been passed by the trial Court. The dispensation of justice should not be made post haste. It must give an indication that justice is being done not only for the sake of doing it but also must appear to have been done to the party, who i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(1)AWC627; [2002(92)FLR783]; (2002)1UPLBEC432
M. Katju and S.K. Singh, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Rai for the respondents.2. The petitioner was in Army service having joined in 1963. He was posted at various places Including hill areas. Subsequently, he developed bronchial Asthama. hyper-tension and obesity and he was discharged from the Army. By order dated 23.11.1994, his claim for disability pension has been rejected and by order dated 14.11.1996, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, his appeal has also been rejected. Hence this petition.3. The short question in this case is whether the petitioner's illness was due to military service or otherwise. A perusal of Annexure-3 to the writ petition shows that on medical examination of the petitioner, it was found that the illness was not due to military service. In fact, the Illness occurred in 1984 when the petitioner was posted in peace area. The question whether the illness was due to military service or not is basically a question of fact and hence, ...
Tag this Judgment!