Allahabad Court April 2003 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.
Ashwini Kumar Pandey Vs. General Manager (Personnel), Punjab National ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2304
S.K. Singh, J.1. By means of this writ petition, challenge is to the orders passed by Senior Regional Manager, Kanpur Region, Punjab National Bank (respondent no. 3) dated 30.1.2001 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) and the appellate order dated 31.7.2001 passed by Zonal Manager, East U.P. Zone, Punjab National Bank, respondent No. 2 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition) with the prayer for reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.2. The facts for the purposes of decision of the case runs in a narrow compass which can be summarised as thus.3. The petitioner having been recruited in the service of Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) in the year 1986, was selected by the Banking Services Recruitment Board for being appointed as clerk-cum-cashier and was posted in the District Kanpur, On 25.4.1998, petitioner was told by the Manager that there was some discrepancy of some amount attributable to the petitioner and the petitioner should deposit th...
Ram Pal Singh Vs. Inspector General of Registration and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2321
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, who was working as Registration Clerk, has challenged the order dated 16h January, 2003, whereby an order has been passed for recovery of the amount of increment paid to the petitioner for which he was not entitled. Before passing of the aforesaid order, the petitioner was given show cause notice dated 13th May, 2002 and the petitioner has submitted a reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. After consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner, it was found by the authorities that since the petitioner himself has opted that he is not willing to go on promotion because as a consequence of promotion, he is to be transferred. Therefore, the authorities have passed the order holding that the petitioner would not be transferred as he has agreed that petitioner will not be entitled for the increment by the order dated 5th April, 1991, wherein since the petitioner ha...
Vindhyachal Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2327
S.K. Singh, J.1. Challenged in this petition is the order/notice issued by opposite party No. 2 dated 4.2.2003 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) by which petitioner has been informed that he is to attain the age of superannuation on 17.3.2003 on attaining the age of 58 years.2. When the matter was taken up, counsel appearing for the Bank promptly filed counter-affidavit to which learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he does not intend to file any rejoinder-affidavit and thus as jointly requested, arguments of the counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and learned counsel who appears for the Bank have been heard.3. There appears to be not much dispute on the fact and thus on the existing material, the question which requires attention is that whether the petitioner is entitled to continue upto the age of 60 years or upto the age of 58 years.4. The facts which need mention for disposal of this writ petition travel in a very narrow compass which can be summarised th...
Baboo Lal Dubey Vs. Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2453
S.K. Singh, J. 1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 19.4.2001 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) as has been passed by respondent No. 2 by which, the petitioner has been removed from service.2. For the purpose of convenient understanding, the facts in brief, can be summarised as thus. The petitioner who has been working as Conductor in U.P.S.R.T.C., Zero Board, Depot, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) was served with the charge-sheet on 23.9.1997. It is mentioned in the charge-sheet that on 4.9.1997, he misbehaved Sri Jawahar Lal, the Assistant Traffic Inspector in the Corporation at about 8.15 a.m. near Zero Road Bus Station Canteen. It is mentioned that the aforesaid misconduct was a result of annoyance of the petitioner as on 29.8.1997, he was caught by Sri Jawahar Lal aforesaid while taking ten passengers without tickets. The charge-sheet was replied by the petitioner on 20.12.1997. Thereafter, on 1....
Ram Nagina Singh Vs. U.P. Khadi Evam Gram Udyog Board and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2410
S.K. Singh, J.1. By means of present writ petition petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.2.2003 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by Prashashak/Mantri, Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Maghar (Sant Kabir Nagar) by which petitioner has been placed under suspension. When the matter was taken up at the admission stage, Sri Rajiv Sharma, learned advocate who represents respondent No. 1, U. P. Khadi Evam Gram Udyog Board raised preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 whose action is under challenge are not statutory authority and they are not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. A short counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1.2. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sharma, learned advocate has addressed the Court on the question of maintainability of this petition.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits on the basis of the fact ...
Gaon Shiksha Samiti and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2466
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.8.2000 (Annexure-7), by which three teachers have been transferred from the school of the petitioner, and further to direct the respondents not to interfere with peaceful functioning of the institution in village Sahabad.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that in the village Sahabad there was a Primary School and it was upgraded and posts of three teachers were sanctioned. The list of the new established schools were issued in which the school of the petitioners village was also there. It appears that there has been some change in the list and in place of the name of the petitioners' village the name of another village was substituted vide order dated 11.8.1999. In pursuance of the said order the three teachers posted there because of upgradation have been transferred to various other places. Hence this writ petition.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not filed the order by ...
Kamlesh Rai Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC2800; (2003)2UPLBEC1307
B. S. Chauhan, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed against the no claim award dated 31.5.1999, passed by the Labour Court, Varanasi, published on 14.10.1999.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner workman raised the industrial dispute, and the appropriate Government in exercise of the powers under Section 4K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called Act, 1947) vide order dated 26th July, 1997 made a reference as to whether the termination of the services of the workman w.e.f. 17.4.1995 was in accordance with law, and if not to what relief he was entitled to? In pursuance of the said reference petitioner workman filed a claim petition contending that respondent No. 2 Jal Sansthan was the principal employer and he was employed as a gun man for security purpose on 3rd April, 1992 through the Director of M/s. Smart Ex Serviceman Security. His work was satisfactory as a Watchman/Guard and he had worked under the direct control and super...
Faqeer Bux and ors. Vs. Smt. Asmat Ara Begum and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC3321
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This is a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the judgment and order dated 22.8.1983, passed by the Xth Additional District Judge, Sitapur, dismissing the objection of the revisionists against the admissibility of the two document Nos. 22 Ka-1 and 22 Ka-2.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionists and have gone through the record.3. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 22,000 as a loss sustained to them. During the evidence, the plaintiff tried to prove two paper Nos. 22 Ka-1 and 22 Ka-2. The defendant raised objection of the admissibility of these two documents on the ground that they were not sufficiently stamped.According to the plaintiffs, these documents were only the memorandum of agreement. While according to the defendants, these documents were bonds. The learned trial court after hearing both the parties held that the documents in question we...
M.K. JaIn and ors. Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: AIR2004All33
ORDERSunil Ambwani, J.1. Meerut-Bijnor route lies partly within the jurisdiction of Regional Transport Authority (in short referred to as 'R.T.A.'), Meerut, and partly within the jurisdiction of R.T.A., Moradabad. There are 83 permit holders on Meerut-Bijnor route for operating stage carriages. Another inter regional route namely Muzaffarnagar-Bijnor route is traversed by 38 permit holders of stage carriage operating private transport vehicles. A scheme was proposed under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short 'Old Act') covering Muzaffarnagar-Bijnor route, which was confirmed under Section 68-D of the Old Act and was notified on 5-11-1977. This notified Muzaffarnagar-Bijnor route passed through Bhope-Morna-Rawalighat for reaching Bijnor, and crossed river Ganges by Pentoon bridge at Rawalighat. The other route namely Meerut-Bijnor passed through Mawana-Behsuma-Ramraj-Dharapur-Bidur Kuti for reaching Bijnor. This other route was not notified route, and crossed river Gan...
Sharda Devi (Smt.) Vs. District Magistrate/Collector and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR849]; (2003)2UPLBEC1134
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri Om Prakash Chaurasia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 3.2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner, who is a widow and whose husband Late Surajbali Ram was employed with the respondents as regular Class-IV employee died on 23rd May, 1999, has applied for appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 before Respondent No. 1 on 15th October, 1999. The Respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 1st December, 1999/4th January, 2000 informed the petitioner that his application for appointment has been rejected by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur on the ground that the appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules can be made only to a person suitable forappointment. It is this order, which is under challenge by means of present writ petition, the copy where of has been tagged as Annexure-'2' to the writ petition.3. The responden...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »