Allahabad Court March 2004 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.
Raj Nath Singh and anr. Vs. Adhyaksha, U.P. Power Corporation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1848; [2004(102)FLR141]
ORDERVineet Saran, J.1. Both the petitioners retired from the service of the U. P. Power Corporation on 31.7.2001 after having served the Corporation for over three decades. The petitioners claim that they were entitled for payment of gratuity and G.P.F. immediately after their retirement as they had completed all the formalities with regard to the same but they were paid the said amount towards their retiral benefits only on 19.12.2002 and 11.12.2002 respectively which is nearly after 16 months of their retirement.2. Petitioner No. 1 Raj Nath Singh had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 6107 of 2003 and the petitioner No. 2 Sohan Singh had filed Writ Petition No. 12483 of 2003 which were disposed with a direction that the matter relating to payment of interest for the delayed payment of their retiral benefits shall be considered by the competent authority on the representations being filed by the petitioners with regard to their grievances. Respondent No. 4 Maha Prabandhak, Varanasi Kshe...
Chandra Shekhar and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2429
Vineet Saran, J. 1. The Electricity Service Commission, Lucknow, issued an Advertisement No. 2 of 2003, whereby applications were invited for appointment of 190 Office Assistant Grade III. All the posts to be filled up were of backlog vacancies falling under the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes category. The petitioners were some of the applicants in response to the aforesaid advertisement. All the petitioners are Scheduled Caste candidates regarding which there is no dispute. The petitioners participated in the examination conducted by the Electricity Service Commission and on the basis of the same, the results of typing and computer examination were published in the first week of August, 2003. Since the petitioners had qualified in the written examination, they were called for interview and finally the Commission on 22.8.2003, prepared the select list, in which the names of the petitioners were shown as the selected candidates. The Commission, thereafter on 25.8.2003, forwarded the ...
Brijesh Kumar Singh and anr. Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2538
R.B. Misra, J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior advocate with Sri S. K. Gupta, advocate as well as standing counsel for the State and Sri B. N. Singh, advocate of Public Service Commission.2. In the Writ Petition No. 38335 of 1999 the prayer has been madedirecting the U. P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad (in short 'Commission' hereinafter) to declare the waiting list of the year 1987 in respect of Upper Division Assistant and Lower Division Assistant and send the name of the petitioner to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh by issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the State Government of Uttar Pradesh to demand the name from the waiting list of the examination of the year 1987 of Upper Division Assistant and Lower Division Assistant.3. In the Writ Petition No. 8146 of 1994, Prem Shanker Rai v. State of U. P., a writ of mandamus has been prayed directing the respondents to consider the appointment of the writ-petitioner to the post of Upper Division Assistant for which h...
Pati Ram Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2541
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. Petitioner, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated 23rd August, 2002, passed by the respondent No. 4, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-21 to the writ petition whereby the respondent No. 4 has deducted an amount of Rs. 1,72,779.50.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an application for amendment wherein he has sought for to add para No. 26A and ground No. V, which are reproduced below :'26A. That an amount of Rs. 1,72,779.50 was recovered by respondent No. 3 at the advice of respondent Nos. 2 and 4 from the pension, gratuity, rashikaran, etc., due to the petitioner after retirement without any notice or information to the petitioner which is just contrary to the natural justice and Constitution of India.''V. Because the recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,72,779.50 from the pension and gratuity, etc. due to the petitioner was made without any notice and information by respondents ill...
Private Bas Sanchalak Kalyan Samiti and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All314
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the resolution passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Varanasi (hereinafter called the R.T.A.) dated 28-2-2004 granting 40 Permanent Stage Carriage permits in favour of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called the U.P.S.R.T.C.) on the route of the petitioner, i.e. Varanasi-Ghazipur.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner is an Association of existing Permanent Stage Carriage Permit holders on the route Varanasi-Ghazipur-via-Saidpur. From time to time, permits have been granted on the aforesaid non-nationalised route. The U.P.S.R.T.C. also made an application for grant of 40 permits on the said route. Petitioners had not been served the copy of the said application. However when they came to know about it they approached this Court by filing the writ petition No. 6706 of 2004 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 20-4-2004, wherein the respondent...
Narendra Kumar and anr. Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-2004
Reported in: (2004)2UPLBEC2037
V.M. Sahai, J.1. The questions that arise for consideration in this petition are whether there is any limitation for recovering the sum due as arrears of land revenue under the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, and if there is none, whether recovery can be made within reasonable time or it is open to recover at any point of time2. The petitioners constituted a registered partnership firm, known as Adarsh Aluminium Industries to manufacture Aluminium Utensils. On 22.10.1973 an application was made by the firm to the U.P. Financial Corporation, Ghaziabad (in brief the Corporation) for granting loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) for establishing the unit. The Corporation on 15.5.1974 sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,80,000/-. Out of he sanctioned amount a total sum of Rs. 1,38,700/- was disbursed in instalments to the petitioners between 7.4.1975 to 17.7.1976. The entire amount of sanctioned loan was not disbursed, therefore, according to petitioners the unit could no...
Nadim Ahmad and ors. Vs. Regional Secretary, High School and Intermedi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2826
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioners who are 36 in number appeared in Intermediate Examination in the year 1996 conducted by the respondents. It is further alleged that these petitioners appeared in the entire examination, solved question and on every day their presence was noted on the relevant register and after solving the question they used to handover the answer-books to the invigilators. After the conclusion of the examination the Board declared the examination result on 7.6.1996 and the petitioners were declared passed in the aforesaid examination. They were issued mark-sheets also. It is after sometime when the petitioners did not receive their certificates they approached the Board, then they were told that their 1996 examination was cancelled. Thus, they have approached this Court by means of this writ petition.2. Petitioners have further alleged that at no point of time they were given any opportunity nor were they ever informed of the reason as to why their examination was ca...
Anish Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All399
ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.2. Learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 has also been heard.3. It may be noticed that in spite of repeated opportunities having been provided to file a counter-affidavit in opposition to the writ petition, no counter-affidavit has been filed so far in spite of the fact that on 23-2-2004 it was made clear that no further time for filing the counter-affidavit will be granted.4. The petitioner has asserted that UP Zila Adhikarl/Deputy District, Magistrate. Bhadohi, who was also functioning as Assistant Collector, had granted domicile certificate in favour of the petitioner dated 10-7-2002 certifying that he was a permanent resident of Village Kandhiya, Tehsil - Bhadohi. District - Sant Ravidas Nagar. However, the aforesaid certificate was subsequently, vide the order dated 5-1-2004, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, cancelled with the direction to initiate the disciplinary pr...
Preetam and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4556
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This appeal was preferred by these five accused-appellants against their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. Further accused-appellants. Preetam and Mukundi were convicted and sentenced to 7 years R.I. under Section 307, I.P.C. simpliciter, 2 years' R.I. to ac-cused-appellants-Karan Singh, Tutti and Katti under Section 307 read with Section 149, I.P.C, 6 months' R.I. to accused-appellants-Preetam, Karan Singh, Mukundi, Katti and Tutti under Section 323 read with Section 149, I.P.C. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 20-8-1977 at about 3.30 p.m. when Gulab son of Pooran and his nephew Chhatrapal son of Bahadur were grazing their cattle in Dhandhai Haar, appellant-Preetam, who is a collateral of the above two, came there and asked Chhatrapal and Gulab, why they are grazing their cattle in his field. Chhatrapal and Gulab told him th...
Annapurna Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ist A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1557
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. Petitioner aggrieved by the award dated 30.10.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Ist Additional District Judge, District-Etawah has approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so far as it directs to deposit a sum of Rs. 75,000 out of the total compensation awarded, to the petitioner in the fixed deposit in a nationalized bank for twenty years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this condition is wholly arbitrary and in this view of the matter, the petitioner relies upon a decision of learned single Judge of this Court in Smt. Runna v. Vth Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur, Writ Petition No. 27782 of 1996, decided on 29.8.1996, 1998 (1) TAC 450 and Anr. judgment of learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 29085 of 1996, decided on 10.9.1996. 1997 ACJ 625 and prays for that such a condition is arbitrary and therefore, is liable to be quashed.2. There is no disp...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »