Allahabad Court January 2002 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.
Sukhbir Singh Vs. Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC801; (2002)1UPLBEC775
S. K. Singh, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the termination order dated 5.9.1994 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1 and the order passed by respondent No. 2 dismissing the petitioner's appeal (Annexure-6 to the writ petition).2. The petitioner has served as Constable in Civil Police for about 16 years. When the petitioner was posted as Constable in Civil Police at Police Station, Police Lines, Agra, it has been stated that due to domestic reasons, he applied for leave from 1.6.1992 to 8.7.1992 and again from 30.10.1992 to 6.12.1992. It is said that the petitioner was never communicated by the officials that whether the leave has been sanctioned or not but as there was unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner has to go on leave. It is for this unauthorised absence, the petitioner appears to have been proceeded in which the petitioner has been punished with the orde...
Rajendra Prasad Katiyar Vs. Joint Director of Education and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC829; (2002)1UPLBEC770
Anjani Kumar, J.1. These three writ petitions, two filed by Rajendra Prasad Katiyar and one filed by Hari Nam Singh, relate to the same factual and legal controversy and therefore, they are being disposed of by the common judgment and order with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. The facts leading to the filing of the aforesaid writ petitions are that Hari Nam Singh filed Writ Petition No. 27750 of 2001 in the month of July, 2001 challenging the order dated 9th July, 2001, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, whereby the Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur, has stayed the earlier order dated 28th June, 2001, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition of Hari Nam Singh. By the said order dated 28.6.2001, the Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur, relying upon the clarification issued by the Director has clarified that in the matter of grant of higher grade, i.e., L.T. grade to which a teacher working in C.T. grade, ten years ...
Lakshmi Narayan Shukla Vs. Joint Director of Education, Basti and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC872; (2002)1UPLBEC759
S.K. Singh, J. 1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 8.3.1999 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) by which the appeal filed by the opposite party No. 3 regarding infer se seniority dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 came to be decided in favour of the opposite party No. 3. 2. Petitioner and the respondent No. 3 both were given appointment as Lecturer on 2.9.1974. Petitioner claims that he was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade on 1.3.1973 and was approved on that post. It is claimed that in the year. 1979 a seniority list was published by the Manager of the Institution where the petitioner was placed at S. No. 3 and the opposite party No. 3 was placed at S. No. 4, which was not objected by the opposite party No. 3. It has been further stated that in the year 1994 another seniority list was published in which also the same sequence was shown. It is in the year 1994 an objection was filed by the opposit...
Om Prakash Bajpai Vs. Additional District Judge, Kanpur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1105
A.K. Yog, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition under Article 226/227 Constitution of India has been filed by one Om Prakash Bajpayee (the petitioner) on the ground that he entered into the possession of a shop-part of premises No. 55/113-Generalganj, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter called the 'shop') as subtenant of one Satish Kumar Goenka (respondent No. 4) the tenant of the aforesaid premises whose owner and landlord happened to be M/s. Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mills, Respondent No. 6 a company registered under Companies Act. Sharda Gupta, respondent No. 5, happens to be the receiver of M/s. Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mills and undertaking belonging to the aforesaid company. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.2.1999 and 20.2.1999 passed by the Delegated Authority/Rent Control and Eviction Officer under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called 'the...
Wimco Ltd. and anr. Vs. Vikram Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC735
B.K. Rathi, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 6.9.2000 passed by Civil Judge(Senior Division), Bijnor recording findings on issue Nos. 3 and 5 againstthe revisionists,2. The fact giving rise to this revision are as follows :'The Suit No. 142 of 1996 was filed by the respondent against the revisionists under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The revisionists contested the suit. One of the plea taken was that the suit was filed on 6.9.1996, that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been enforced from 25.1.1996 and the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, has been repealed. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. On this plea, issue No. 5 was framed. There was another plea raised in the written statement that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit, regarding which issue No. 3 was framed. The trial court by the impugned order dated 6.9.2000 decided both the Issues against the revisionists. Aggri...
Chheda Lal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC807
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. Heard Shri M. A. Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State of U.P. and the learned counsel appearing for State Bank of India. Shri R.B. Sahai.2. The petitioner took agricultural loan of Rs. 1,36.000 from the respondent No. 3 to purchase a tractor on 14.2.1995. He has paid a sum of Rs. 1,72,000 till now as stated in paragraph 3 of the writ petition.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the Collection Amin is pressing the petitioner to deposit the amount in lump sum as mentioned in the recovery citation. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to deposit the remaining amount of loan but due to his poor condition he is unable to deposit the entire due amount at one time. The period of loan was seven years which was ending in the year 2002 but due to default in making payment, there is breach of agreement and now the agreement in question made with the bank...
Durga Prasad Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC823; [2002(92)FLR1174]; (2002)1UPLBEC756
D.S. Sinha and Onkareshwat Bhatt, JJ.1. Heard Shri Vinod Dwivedi. learned counsel appearing for the appellant.2. By means of hfs order and judgment dated 4th January, 2002, passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44308 of 2001. Durga Prasad v. District Magistrate, Basti and Ors. the learned single Judge has relegated the petitioner to the effective statutory alternative remedy of claim petition under Section 4 of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976. for redressal of his grievance raised by him in the petition.3. The view taken by the learned single Judge is well fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in Stare of U. P. and Anr.v. Labh Chand, 1993 (2) AWC 1139 (SC) : AIR 1994 SC 754 and two Full Bench decisions of this Court delivered in Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director, U. P. Co-operative Union, Lucknow and Ors. 1992 (2) AWC 1005 : 1991 ACJ 784 and Km. Mamta Jauhari u. State of U. P. and Anr. 1999 ALJ 279. respectively.4. The impugned ord...
Hari Shankar Mishra Vs. Commissioner, Jhansi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC854; (2002)1UPLBEC757
S.K. Singh, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 25.3.1996 and 15.10.1992, passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Annexures-12 and 5 respectively.2. Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Clerk by the District Planning Officer in the department of Planning Office district Jalaun in the year, 1967. As has been pleaded by the petitioner In the year, 1976, as he did not obey the direction of the authorities of getting family planning operation done, his services were terminated in the year 1976 itself. Against this, petitioner made representation before the respondent No. 1 who after considering the facts allowed the petitioner's claim and directed for his reinstatement by order dated 26th July, 1976. In the order of the respondent No, 1 which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, it has been found that serious lapses and vindictive attitude was adopted by the authorities in terminating the petitioner's s...
U.P. State Electricity Board and anr. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Co ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC930; [2002(93)FLR285]; (2002)2UPLBEC1041
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner-employer, U.P. State Electricity Board has challenged the award of the Labour Court, Gorakhpur, dated 29.9.1997, passed in Adjudication Case No. 137 of 1982, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, on 21.1.2002, I passed an order allowing the writ petition in part for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons.2. The petitioner-employer had terminated the services of respondent No. 2, the concerned workman on 3.7.1980 and the dispute was referred to labour court by the State Government vide its order dated 21.8.1982. During the pendency of the proceedings before the labour court, the labour court has passed two orders, one dated 6.9.1987 and another dated 28.3.1989, which were challenged by the employer by filing two separate writ petitions before this Court being Writ Petition Nos. 2075 of 1988 and 14260 of 1989. By the separate judgments, these two writ ...
Daya Shanker Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC956; [2002(93)FLR306]
M. Katju and S.K. Singh, JJ.1. The petitioner has challenged a vigilance enquiry. In our opinion, no writ lies against a vigilance enquiry, since such enquiry does not give rise to any cause of action against which the petitioner can be aggrieved.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the same charges, the petitioner was exonerated in a disciplinary enquiry and hence, subsequently a vigilance enquiry cannot be held. We do not agree with this submission. A vigilance enquiry is only in the nature of a preliminary enquiry and hence. the petitioner can have no grievance as a preliminary enquiry is only for the subjective satisfaction of the employer. It is possible that some fresh evidence or material may have become available to the department implicating the petitioner in some misconduct that may not have been available earlier. Hence, there is no absolute bar to holding of a fresh enquiry, even assuming that he was exonerated earlier, provided there is some fresh ma...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »