Allahabad Court June 2003 Judgments
Dharam Chand and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2322
S.P. Mehrotra, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 3rd June, 2003 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition).2. From the allegations made in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are posted on the post of Fireman at Fire Service Station, Ballia. By the impugned order dated 3rd June, 2003, the petitioner No. 1 has been transferred from Ballia to Sidharthnagar, while the petitioner No. 2 has been transferred from Ballia to Gonda.3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in view of the Transfer Policy dated 30th June, 2000 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition), the respondents ought to have considered the personal difficulties of the petitioners while issuing the transfer order. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has referred to Clause 4 of the said Transfer Policy dated 30th June, 2000.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has further referred to Paragraph 8 and Paragraph 9 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Raj Pandey and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-19-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC2901
ORDERVineet Saran, J.1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for a direction to the respondents that the petitioner may be treated in service on extension till the end of the next academic session, i.e., upto 30.6.2004. 2. The petitioners are assistant teachers in the primary schools. Their date of birth is 1.7.1943. They are claiming benefit of Rule 29 of the U. P. Basic Education Teachers' Service Rules, 1981, which is quoted below : 'Every teacher shall retire from service in the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years : Provided that a teacher who retires during an academic session (July 1 to June 30) shall continue to work till the end of the academic session i.e., June 30 and such period of service will be deemed as extended period of employment.' 3. Admittedly the academic session begins on 1st July and ends on 30th June. The said Rule provides that in case if a teacher attains the age or superannuation during the commencement o...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Kumar Umrao Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-18-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC2899; (2003)3UPLBEC2499
ORDERVineet Saran, J.1. The petitioner is admittedly Head Master in a Primary School. He is to attain the age of sixty years, i.e., the age of superannuation on 22nd June, 2003. As per Rule 29 of the U. P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, the petitioner is entitled to continue till the end of trie academic session on 30th June, 2003. 2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to work as Head Master of the School till 10th May, 2004.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by a Circular dated 13.12.2002, issued by the Director of Education (Basic), Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad to all the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikaris the session which was earlier from 1st July to 30th June has been changed to be from 11th May to 10th May of the succeeding year. 4. The Circular dated 13.12.2002, which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition has been perused b...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Kumar Vishwakarma Vs. Kisan Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC3014
ORDERSunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri Chinta Manl Yadav for petitioner and Sri A.K. Singh as well as learned standing counsel for respondents.2. Petitioner is challenging order dated 24/27.8.1991, passed by respondent No. 1, as well as the order dated 19.12.1991, passed by the respondent No. 3, whereby his appointment as weighing clerk on permanent basis was terminated and he was transferred as daily wage weighing clerk.3. The facts in brief are that petitioner was appointed and was working as weighing clerk on daily wages in respondent sugar mill for several years. It is stated that he was performing duties of permanent employee yet he was not made permanent by any specific order. There was some resentment amongst the union of workers and the management, which ultimately resulted in an agreement in between the union and the management whereby it was agreed that all persons who were performing duty of permanent nature for several years shall be regularised. A selection committee was const...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Saran Goyal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2316
Sunil Ambwani, J. 1. Petitioner is at present posted as Sub-Inspector, Civil Police, Kanpur Nagar. He joined the services on 16th January, 1984. In the year 1999, petitioner was posted at Fatehgarh. An office message was communicated to him on 27.10.1999 by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad for immediate rushing to Village Ishapur. Petitioner immediately rushed to the spot with Additional Police Force and was engaged in operation in which hardened criminal Nem Kumar alias Bilaiya was flushed out from inside a house where he had taken shelter and had opened fire. Petitioner sustained injuries in his forehead. He was immediately taken to the District Hospital, Farrukhabad where he was treated and lateron shifted to Priya Hospital, Kanpur.2. The encounter was widely reported and that petitioner along with other Police personnels, engaged in the encounter, were recommended for awarding Police Medal for exhibiting extraordinary courage, gallantry and bravery. Sri Rajeev Krish...
Tag this Judgment!Agra Engineering Industries Employees Union Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2375
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Agra Engineering Industries, Artoni, Agra, Respondent No. 2 is a unit of Jay Engineering Works Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. Petitioner is a Union of Agra Engineering Industries employees. It has prayed for quashing the order dated 26.4.2002 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), passed by the State Government, allowing application of the Company for closure of Respondent No. 2, establishment at Agra under Section 25-0 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and has further prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents not to close down the company i.e., Respondent No. 2 and to pay regular salary to its workers.2. The facts giving rise to this petition arc, that Respondent No. 2 suspended its production activities w.e.f, 1.8.2001. Wages were, however, paid to the workers with a total strength of 238 including 52 members of the staff and 186 workmen, up to 31.5.2001. A recovery certificate was issued by the Deputy Labour Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!Shivangi Steels (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-03-2003
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(All)573; [2004]266ITR62(All)
R.K. Agarwal, J.1. The contention of the petitioner is that he has filed an appeal against the block assessment order, which is pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Agra, respondent No. 2. An application filed under Section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Agra, respondent No. 1, after a period of more than one year, on the ground that more than a year has passed and he had not deposited the amount and therefore the demand cannot be stayed.2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself without inviting counter-affidavit in accordance with the rules of court.3. I have heard Shri Tarun Agarwala, counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned standing counsel for the respondents. Section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act gives a discretion to the assessing authority to treat an assessee as not being in def...
Tag this Judgment!Shivangi Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-03-2003
Reported in: [2003]133TAXMAN403(All)
ORDERR.K. Agarwal, J. The contention of the petitioner is that he has filed an Appeal against the block assessment order, which is pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) Agra respondent No. 2. Application filed under section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act has been rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Circle, Agra. Respondent No. 1 after a period of more than 1 year, on the ground that more than a year has passed and he had not deposited the amount and therefore the demand cannot be stayed. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself without inviting counter-affidavit in accordance with the rules of court.3. I have heard Shri Tarun Agarwala counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dhananjay Awasthi learned standing counsel for the respondents. Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act gives a discretion to the assessing authority to treat an assessee as not being in default in respect of the amount in dispute i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›