Allahabad Court March 2002 Judgments
Smt. Anju Tewari Vs. District Magistrate/Collector, Etawah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1532; [2002(93)FLR690]; (2002)2UPLBEC1093
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties' counsel, the writ petition is disposed of. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 2nd/3rd July. 2001 and order dated 18th September, 2001. A further writ has been prayedfor directing the District Magistrate, Etawah, to allow the petitioner to discharge her duty as clerk-copyist in his department without hindrance and continue paying her salary regularly month to month along with arrears of salary. 3. The facts of the case which emerge from the pleadings of the parties are ; the petitioner's husband, late Sri Sunil Kumar Tiwari, was working as a clerk in the office of Collector, Etawah. He died on 8th April, 2000, while in service. The petitioner, who is a post graduate, claimed employment as dependent of deceased employee. The Collector vide his order dated 27th April, 2...
Tag this Judgment!Zafar Alam Vs. Collector, Jaunpur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1659; (2002)3UPLBEC2143
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner was appointed as Collection Amin in the year 1976 and was confirmed on the said post in the year 1984. The services of the petitioner are governed by U. P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, hereinafter referred as the 1999 Rules.3. By an order dated 3.7.1999 passed by the Deputy District Magistrate, Badlapur, the petitioner was suspended and the Tehsildar. Badlapur, was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was issued by the Deputy District Magistrate dated 22.10.1999, Annexure-2 to the writ petition was issued by the Deputy District Magistrate. It is alleged that the charge-sheet was not approved by the Collector, Jaunpur, which is against the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the 1999, Rules.4. The petitioner filed a representation dated 5.11.1999 before the Deputy District Magistrate, Badlapur, requesting that he should be supplied a copy of the report dated...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Verma Vs. Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Edu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1696; [2002(93)FLR1169]; (2002)3UPLBEC2383
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Sri Madan Mohan Lal Srivastava for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that the impugned order of transfer is punitive and further on the ground that the petitioner being a Class IV employee cannot be transferred out of station. 3. The writ petition had been disposed off by judgment and order dated 20.12.2000. The Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education U. P., Allahabad, preferred an appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.12.2000 passed by the learned single Judge in the aforesaid petition. The Division Bench of this Court presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice remanded the matter for consideration afresh as the State was not given any opportunity to file a counter-affidavit and the writ petition had been disposed off without such opportunity at the admission stage itself.4. In these circumstances, the writ petition has come up for...
Tag this Judgment!Vashishtha Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1894; [2002(93)FLR862]; (2002)3UPLBEC2110
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 3rd January, 1998 dismissing the petitioner in exercise of power under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').2. The petitioner was initiallyappointed as Police Constable in theyear 1974, He was promoted on15.12.1982 as Head Constable. At therelevant time, he was working inPolice Station, George Town,Allahabad. The SeniorSuperintendent of Police, Allahabadby the impugned order dated 3.1.1998dismissed the petitioner in exercise ofpower under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the rules.3. Rule 8 is produced below :8. Dismissed and removal.--(1) No police officer shall be dismissed or removed from service by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority.(2) No police officer shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after proper inquiry and disciplinary proceedings as contemplated by these rules :P...
Tag this Judgment!Bibhuti NaraIn Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2504
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and also perused the record.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 18.8.1990 passed by the licensing authority under the Arms Act suspending the licenses of the petitioner of a N. P. Bore rifle and of a 12 bore S.B.B.L. gun and the order dated 5.10.1990 passed by the appellate authority dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for interim relief and entertaining/ admitting the appeal filed by the petitioner.3. It has been stated that the petitioner, who is the holder of aforesaid licenses of a rifle and of a 12 bore gun. never misused his guns nor any first information report was ever lodged against him. He took a loan from the bank after following the procedure prescribed under the law.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, ...
Tag this Judgment!Nishi Dobriyal and anr. Vs. Director General, C.R.P.F. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1321; (2002)3UPLBEC2113
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Smt. Kamla Singh, counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.K. Rai appearing for the respondents. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and the writ petition is being finally disposed of according to Rules of the Court.2. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 5th February. 2002, passed by the Director General, Central Reserve Police Force refusing the prayer of the petitioners for cancellation of the transfer order and directing posting of the petitioners accordingly. A writ of mandamus has also been sought for directing the respondents not to Interfere in working of the petitioners in Group Centre. C.R.P.F.. Allahabad.3. The facts of the case as given in the writ petition are : Petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 both are working in Central Reserve Police Force. Petitioner No. 1 is wife whereas petitioner No. 2 is husband. Both the petitioners had been posted at Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force,...
Tag this Judgment!Vidyawati Construction Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1396; [2002(95)FLR499]
Sudhir Narain, J. 1. The applicant has prayed that Sri P.K. Sharma, who was earlier appointed as Umpire may be treated as the Presiding Arbitrator of the Arbitral Tribunal.2. Briefly, the facts are that the applicant filed Civil Misc. (Arbitration) Application No. 36 of 1998 for appointment of arbitrators under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996 (in short the Act). The application was allowed by this Court on 26.8.1998 appointing Smt. Taneja Pandey. Deputy F.A. and C.A.O./Core/A.L.D. and Sri O. P. Narang. Deputy Chief Engineer (Retired) Track Machines, Northern Railway, G-101, Prayag Kunj Apartments, 3, Stratchy Road, Allahabad as arbitrators.3. The applicant also filed another Application No. 47 of 1998 for appointment of an Umpire. This application was disposed of on 1.11.1999 and Sri P.K. Sharma as agreed between the parties, was appointed as Umpire.4. In the present application, it has been stated that Sri P.K. Sharma be treated as Presiding Arbitrator inst...
Tag this Judgment!Allahabad Patrika (P.) Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1506; [2002(94)FLR669]
Sunil Ambwani, J. 1. Heard Sri Shakti Swaroop Nigam for the petitioner and Sri R.C. Dubey for respondents. With the consent of theparties, this writ petition is being finally decided at the admission stage.2. Petitioner M/s. Allahabad Patrika Pvt. Ltd. is a private limited company and is engaged in the business of publishing/printing newspapers. The publication of news paper was stopped from 8.1.1994 to 25.6.1995. The managemenl of the company reached to an agreement with the workmen in conciliation proceedings before the Conciliation Officer/Dy. Labour Commissioner on 24.6.1995. Under the terms of agreement, which were signed before Deputy Labour Commissioner, Allahabad, and registered by him, it was agreed that the publication will resume by taking workmen not less than 170 in number, on the terms and conditions stated in agreement. The management paid the workmen and resumed publication. It appears that the retrenched workmen were not satisfied with the agreement and filed conciliat...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Kumar Srivastava Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2058; (2002)2UPLBEC1597
R. B. Mlsra, J. 1. In this writ petition, prayer has been made to quash the impugned order dated 17.10.1997, passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure-7) and further tocommand the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner as assistant teacher in L.T. grade in the institution in question month by month as and when it falls due. Heard Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. By letter dated 17.10.1997, the District Inspector of Schools (D.I.O.S.) returned the papers to the management declining the financial approval of the petitioner purported to have been made on the temporary basis against the short-term vacancy created by the appointment of teacher of the institution as ad hoc principal in the institution. The main issue for adjudication is whether the 'vacancy' created by promotion of teacher of the school in to ad hoc Principal shall be treated as 'short-term vacancy' or 'permanent vacancy'. It appears that Sri Raj Pal S...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2078; (2002)3UPLBEC2463
R.B. Misra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed fora direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.5.1989/ 1.6.1989 (Annexure-1) whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and amount of Rs. 2,21,671.37 was directed to be recovered from the petitioner and to quash the recovery certificate issued on the basis of the same (Annexure-4).Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri P. N. Roy and Sri S. D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the respondents.2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that the petitioner was a member of Subordinate Agriculture Services, Group II (Development) and his appointment was made with the approval of U. P. Public Service Commission in short called 'Commission' and was working as 'Buffer Godown Inspector' posted at Basti under the District Agricultural Officer, the respondent No. 3. The petitioner was served a charge-sheet...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »