Allahabad Court April 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.
S.J. Collins Vs. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC1994; [2002(94)FLR642]; (2002)2UPLBEC1593
M. Katju, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 18.6.2001, Annexure-? to the writ petition. By that order, the petitioner has been retired at the age of 58 years w.e.f. 31.7.2001. 3. The petitioner was Branch Manager in the service of the District Co-operative Bank, Mahoba. He has claimed that he has right to continue till the age of 60 years. 4. In this connection. Regulation 24 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975, states as follows : 'The date of superannuation from service of an employee of a co-operative society shall be : (a) in the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty-eight years, if he is appointed to a post in Category I, II or III : Provided that, where before commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975, the society had entered with an employee, at the time of his appointment, into a co...
Ravi Srivastava Vs. District Magistrate, Varanasi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2030; [2002(94)FLR16]; (2002)3UPLBEC2385
S. Rafat Alam, J.1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs ;'(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.6.1995, issued by the District Magistrate, Varanasi (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) ;(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to treat the date of retirement of father of the petitioner late Pashupati Nath Srivastava as 31.1.1991 and to give benefit of dying-in-harness by giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner on Class III post on account of the father of the petitioner having died-in-harness on 5.1.1991 ;(c) issue any other and/or further writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the ends of justice.(d) award cost of the petition to the petitioner.'2. Sri B. K. Yadav, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the petitioner and has also filed his va...
State Bank of India and anr. Vs. Shyam NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2039
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners was dismissed by me for the reasons to be recorded later on 18.4.2002. Here are the reasons for dismissing the writ petition.2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-tenant, which is a public sector bank, against the order of the prescribed authority, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bulandshahar, dated 15.7.1995, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, passed on an application filed by the landlords-respondents under Section 21 (8) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (here-in-after shall be referred to as the 'Act') for the enhancement of the rent. The prescribed authority has allowed the application of the landlords and directed that the rent is enhanced to Rs. 16.253 w.e.f. 1.11.1989. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioners-tenant preferred an appeal numbered as Rent Control Appeal No. 15 of 1995 before the appellate authority. The appellate authority ...
Ayodhya Prasad Vs. Public Service Commission and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2468
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ. 1. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the U. P. Public Service Commission to call the petitioner for interview for the Post of Lecturer. The Commission advertised the post by means of Advertisement dated 21.12.1998. The petilioner applied for the post and appeared in the main examination in the year 1999 but was not called for interview. 2. Aggrieved petitioner has filed this petition. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Commission. In paragraph 4 of the same, it is stated that petitioner was ineligible as he was only part-Lime Lecturer. The teaching experience certificates of the petitioner was checked and it was found that he was only teaching as part-time Lecturer. 4. In Tulsi Ram v. State of U. P., 1998 (3) AWC 2.165 (NOC) : 1998 (3) ESC 1617, it has been held in paragraph 36 that teaching experience of part-time teachers cannot make them eligible for appointment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on th...
Munni Lal Tripathi Vs. Principal Secretary (Vigilance), Satarkata Anub ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1607
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying that a writ of mandamus/prohibition be issued directing the respondents not to proceed further with the enquiry against the petitioner being conducted by Dr. S.N. Singh. Additional City Magistrate. Varanasi, and the enquiry proceedings be quashed. A further prayer has been made that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to make an enquiry against Sri Rajendra Nath Misra.2. The petitioner was posted in the office of Commissioner, Varanasi. He retired from there as administrative officer. Some complaints were received regarding misappropriation of public funds and public properties. One Sri Raj Kumar was posted as Additional Commissioner (Administration), Varanasi, between 10.6.1994 to 13.3.1996 and during the said period. S.T.D. calls worth Rs. 3,53,211 were made from the telephone bearing No. 382423 installed in the officials residence. The records regarding the aforesaid...
Rajveer Singh Vs. Collector, Ghaziabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1651
Yatindra Singh, J.1. The only point involved in these two writ petitions is, whether a revision lies under Sub-section (4A) of Section 122B Section 122B (4A)] of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (the Act) against the order rejecting an application to recall an order passed under Subsection (3) of Section 122B [Section 122B (3)1 of the Act.The Facts :2. The Assistant Collector issued notice to the petitioners to show cause why they may not be for evicted and damages be realised from them under Section 122B of the Act. Petitioners initially appeared before the Assistant Collector but did not appear before him on 14,6.2001 and he passed an order for their eviction from the property in dispute, he also imposed damages. The petitioners filed applications for recalling it on the ground that :(1) The order is ex parte against them.(2) They could not appear due to the strike of the lawyers.(3) Their cases may be heard on merits after recalling the ex parte order.3. The ...
Jitendra Srivastava Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1675; [2002(93)FLR1081]; (2002)2UPLBEC1453
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ. 1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Govind Saran, learned counsel for the Union of India. 2. The petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 30/31 August, 2001, passed by the Secretary, Railway Board, Government of India, New Delhi, Annexure-18 to the writ petition. It appears that the petitioner was selected by the U. P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and was given appointment on 21st January, 1991 in the Indian Railway Traffic Services Group 'A', He joined the training at Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie, U.P., on 16.9.1991 and completed the same on 20.12.1992. He was thereafter, sent for further training at Railway Staff College, Vadodra and attended his training upto 11,6.1993 as stated in paragraph 7 to the writ petition. 3. In paragraph 8 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner wanted to appear for I.A.S. On 18.1.1993, he wrote a letter to the Senior Pro...
Dr. Sheela Singh Vs. Director/Principal, Medical College, Allahabad an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2049; [2002(94)FLR820]; (2002)2UPLBEC1784
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner retired as a Professor of Medicine in Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad in the year, 1996. She is now aged about 64 years. It appears that by G.O. dated 17.4.2001, the U.P. Government took a decision to fill up the vacant posts of teachers in the State of U.P. from amongst the retired teachers on contract basis vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. This was done in view of the shortage of regularly selected teachers and hence, it was decided to appoint retired teachers on contract basis.3. The petitioner applied for appointment in pursuance of the aforesaid G.O. dated 17.4.2001 and the Vice-President of the Medical College Society by his letter dated 20.9.2001 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) wrote to the Director/ Principal to permit the petitioner to Join the Medical College. The petitioner submitted her joining report on 11.10.200...
Deepak Agarwal and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1516; [2002(95)FLR63]; (2002)3UPLBEC2499
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned Notification dated 26.5.1999 (Annexure-18 to the writ petition) so far as It pertains to respondent Nos. 3 to 9. It has also been prayed that petitioner be considered for promotion as Deputy Excise Commissioner and to quash the Notification dated 17.5.1999.2. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the vacancies on the post of Deputy Excise Commissioner had occurred before 17.5.1999, they ought to have been filled up in accordance with the 1983 rules which were applicable before 17.5.1999 when the rules were amended.3. The petitioners were appointed through the U. P. Public Service Commission. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed as TechnicalOfficer by means of order dated 13.8.1991 vide Annexure-1 to the petition and he started functioning as such. He has been confirmed by order dated 12.5.1995 with effect from 14.10.1993 vide Annexure-3 to the petition. Similarly, the petition...
Shil Chandra Vs. Viith Additional District and Sessions Judge, Moradab ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1627
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri B. Malik learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri V.K. Goel learned counsel representing respondent Nos, 2 to 7/2 as well as learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1. 2. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged, the order dated 19.3.2002, passed by the revisional court, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, whereby the decree of the trial court dated 14.10.1999, passed by J.S.C.C.. Moradabad decreeing the suit against the petitioner-tenant for his eviction from the accommodation in question has been upheld. 3. The landlord terminated the tenancy of the petitioner by means of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The petitioner-tenant however denied this fact with regard to service of the notice, but the authorities below have recorded a finding that the notice aforesaid was duly served on the petitioner-tenant. 4. It is admitted fact that b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »