Allahabad Court October 2008 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.
Rahul Purwar S/O Sri Yatindra Nath Gupta Vs. State of U.P. Through Pri ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR926]
Amitava Lala, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 01st April, 2008, 04th April, 2008 and 18th June, 2008, being Annexures-1, 2 and 3 respectively to the writ petition. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 23rd August, 2008, which is Annexure-30 to the writ petition. The petitioner's contention is that he was transferred in a post, where there is no such post secondly he was compelled to work under his juniors; and thirdly, the order is without jurisdiction and tainted with malafide. We have gone through the annexures and found that the work of the petitioner was appreciated by the Managing Director and in the administrative exigency he was transferred to Agra. It appears to this Court that he voluntarily opted to go to Agra and now acted upon on the basis of the direction under the order of the Managing Director dated 01st April, 2008.2. The petitioner contended that if the order is malafide and without jurisdiction, it can be challenged at...
Jai Karan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC461
ORDERRakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the standing counsel.2. The petitioner claims that he was appointed on substantive post of Naib Tehsildar having been selected through U. P. Public Service Commission following the procedure laid down in Subordinate Revenue Executive Service (Naib Tehsildar) Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and is entitled to work on the post of Additional Tehsildar on which he is functioning since his promotion on the said post.3. The backdrop of the case in a nutshell is that a permanent post of Tehsildar in Tehsil Haraiya, district 3asti fell vacant on 31.5.1991 on etirement of one Sri Ramayan Pandey, the erstwhile Tehsildar, therefore, the petitioner moved an application for being promoted and appointed on the said post. Thereafter, another post of Upper Tehsildar at Tehsil Sadar fell vacant on account of transfer of Sri Bharatji Pandey to Tehsil Bhanpur, Basti as Tehsildar. One Sri Ram Kripal Lal, Tehsildar, Bhanpur w...
Mohd. Ayyub Khan S/O Mohd. Mustafa Vs. State of U.P. Through the Secre ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC71; [2008(119)FLR1082]
V.M. Sahai and Sanjay Misra, JJ.1. We have heard Sri R.C. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the appellant, learned slanding Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Sri Azad Khan, Advocate holding brief of Sri S. Islam, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4.2. The District Inspector of Schools, Deoria by his order dated 26.8.2008 held that Sri Muzafrul Hasan was the senior most lecturer in the institution, Mohd. Samiullah is the second senior most lecturer in the institution and the District Inspector of Schools has cancelled the appointment of Mohd. Ayyub Khan as ad hoc principal of the institution as he has found that since Sri Muzafrul Hasan had refused to shoulder the responsibility of officiating principal, hence Sri Samiullah, lecturer next in the order of seniority, was entitled to be appointed on the post of officiating principal. This order was challenged by Mohd Ayyub Khan by filing writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4833 of 2008, dismissed by the ...
Dr. Bhartendu Mishra Son of Late K.N. Mishra Vs. State of U.P. Through ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR1155]
Amitava Lala, J.1. The petitioner's case is that his name was mentioned at the Serial No. 1 in the wait list prepared by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission with reference to Advertisement No. 32. Although no vacancy was available in terms of the advertisement for the appointment of the wait listed candidate, petitioner, however, submits that subsequent vacancies in the subject concerned have become available in other colleges. He seeks appointment against these subsequent vacancies with reference to Section 13(4) of the UP. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980.2. It is admitted on record that the vacancies, which have now been caused and against which the petitioner seeks appointment, were not subject matter of Advertisement No. 32. Reliance upon Section 13(4) of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1980') for the purposes of appointment against non-advertised vacancies is totally misconceived. Section 13(4) of A...
Panther Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Employees' Provident Fund Orga ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-2008
Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ496All
Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.1. Heard Shri Rohit Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri D.K. Pandey, learned Counsel for both the respondents.2. The question involved in this writ petition is as to whether petitioner's establishment is covered by Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (E.P.F. Act in short) or not.3. On May 17, 1971 the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred upon it by Section 1(3)(b) of the Act issued notification which is quoted below:The Central Government hereby specifies that with effect from the May 31, 1971, the said Act, shall apply to every establishment rendering expert services such as supplying: of personnel, advice on domestic or departmental enquiries, special services in rectifying pilferage, thefts, and pay roll irregularities to factories and establishments on certain terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the establishment and the establishment rendering expert services, and employing twenty or ...
Sharwan Kumar Vs. Atul Kumar Gupta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1433
ORDERA. Mateen and R.K. Rastogi, JJ.1. This appeal was initially filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by appellant Sharwan Kumar appearing in person being aggrieved by an order dated 28.4.2008, passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 181 (C) of 2008 by means of which the Hon'ble Contempt Judge had dropped the proceedings and the contempt petition was dismissed. Later on, appellant Sharwan Kumar had made a request that the contempt appeal be treated to be a special appeal preferred against the aforesaid judgment under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the High Court Rules. Permission was granted, and as such, this appeal is being treated as special appeal.2. This Court had called upon the learned Chief Standing Counsel to assist the Court with respect to maintainability of the appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 or special appeal as provided under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the High Court Rules.3. Learned Chief Standing Counsel cited before us the judgment of t...
Panther Security Services Private Ltd. Vs. Employees Provident Fund Or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR933]
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard Shri Rohit Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri D.K. Pandey, learned Counsel for both the respondents.2. The question involved in this writ petition is as to whether petitioner's establishment is covered by Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (E.P.F. Act in short) or not.On 17.5.1971 the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred upon it by Section 1(3)(b) of the Act issued notification which is quoted below:The Central Government hereby specifies that with effect from the 31st May, 1971, I he said Act, shall apply lo every establishment rendering expert services such as supplying of personnel, advice on domestic or departmental enquiries, special services in rectifying pilferage, thefts, and pay roll irregularities to factories and establishments on certain terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the establishment and the establishment rendering expert services, and employing twenty or more persons....
SarifuddIn Son of AhmaduddIn Vs. Deputy Director Consolidation,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC272
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Heard Sri Anil Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Sri Sarvesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel appears on behalf of respondent No. 2.2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 16.09.2008 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bijnor, by which the restoration application filed by the respondent has been allowed.3. It appears that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bijnor vide order dated 29.05.2008 has decided two revisions, 572 and 1181. In revision No. 1181, respondents, Tausif Ahmad and Wasim Ahmad were made party. Notice were issued. Notice sent to Tausif Ahmad has returned back with the report that he had gone out of station while in the case of Wasim Ahmad, it was received by him. Sri Vijay Singh, Advocate filed vaklatanma on behalf of Tausif Ahmad. No vaklatnama has been filed by Wasim Ahmad on whom notice has been served personally. So f...
Km. Usha Khare Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1109
S. Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. The contention of the appellant is that the impugned order dated 19.3.1991 whereby her services were terminated is penal in nature inasmuch as she was terminated on account of the allegation constituting misconduct and, therefore, before passing said order she ought to have been given opportunity of hearing which was not afforded to her and the Hon'ble single Judge has not considered this aspect of the matter and dismissed the writ petition only on the ground that she being a temporary employee has no right to hold the post.2. Sri Pankaj Rai, learned standing counsel argued initially that from the averments made in the counter-affidavit it appears that the appellant was afforded opportunity to show cause before passing the impugned order and, therefore, by order dated 15.9.2008 he was directed to produce the record showing as to whether the appellant was given opportunity or not. He has received the original record and after perusing the same he ...
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal S/O Sri Shiv Babu Gupta Vs. State of U.P. Through ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AWC75
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.Petitioner claims that he has been selected as Shiksha Mitra by the Gaon Shiksha Samiti, Village Panchayat Hussainpur, Kshetra, 'District- Jaunpur whereas respondent No. 6 claims that he is Head Master of the Primary School Itayon, Gram Panchayat Hussainpur, Block- Ram Nagar, District- Jaunpur in which the post of shiksha Mitra is to be filled up by the aforesaid Gaon Samiti.2. Post of Shiksha Mitra is contractual for a period of one year only. The scheme of Siksha Mitra is for spreading education by giving appointments to the best persons available every year for this purpose and is not a scheme for continuous employment as has been held in special appeal No. 305 of 2008 Sanjai Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2008 (3) ESC 1749. The petitioner was selected as Shiksha Mitra for academic session 2005-06. His contractual appointment has been renewed for the session 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. The Gaon Shiksha Samiti has proposed...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›