Allahabad Court February 2009 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.
Kanpur Jal Sansthan and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(85)AWC1911
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition is directed against award dated 20.4.2008 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, U.P., Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 34 of 1997. The matter referred to the labour court was as to whether action of the petitioner employer in not giving the pay scale and designation of steno to respondent No. 3, Nagendra Kumar Srivastava since deceased and survived by legal representative was valid or not.3. Case of the respondent No. 3 was that he was appointed on daily wage basis on 1.7.1983 and after one year he was given the designation and pay scale of clerk/typist, that since 1985 the job of stenographer/typist was being taken from the respondent No. 3, that thereafter w.e.f. 1.1.1987, General Manager granted him the designation and pay scale of stenographer on daily wage basis.4. The case of the petitioner employer was that petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis and he was not performing the job of steno/typis...
Sujit Singh Vs. Managing Director, U.P.S.R.T.C. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(85)AWC1917
S.U. Khan, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner's father was an employee of respondents. He died in-harness on 2.10.1993. Petitioner was minor at that time. Petitioner's mother filed an application on 13.7.1994 stating that her sons were minor and a post shall be kept vacant for them. Petitioner passed High School in 1997 and Intermediate in 2000. In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the writ petition, it has been stated that petitioner gave applications for appointment under dying-in-harness Rule on 3.7.1998 and 7.11.1999. In para 9, it is stated that representation dated 7.11.1999 was sent through U.P.C. (Under certificate of post). Respondents have denied receipt of any of these two representations. In para 10, it is stated that on 3.1.2000 another representation was given, which was received by the concerned clerk on 3.1.2000 and acknowledgment of receipt was made on the copy of the representation. This representation is admitted to have been received by the respondents. I...
Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(85)AWC1912
S.K. Singh and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.1. Heard Sri J.S. Pandey, learned advocate in support of this appeal and Sri Mithilesh Chandra Tripathi, learned advocate who appears for the Union of India.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned District Judge, Agra dated 29.2.2008 by which application filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been rejected.3. There is no dispute about the facts which are as under:The respondents issued an auction notice dated 19.5.2006 for awarding a contract for collection of parking fee at Amar Singh Gate, Agra Fort, Agra for the year 2006-07. The auction took place on 29.5.2006. In the auction appellant was the highest bidder at Rs. 14 lacs. Therefore, under the terms and conditions of the auction he was directed to deposit 50% of the auction amount and furnish security to the tune of 20% of the auction amount. The tender notice in Clause (v) specifically provided that the Principal Director,...
Vasudeo Das Alias Vasudeo Ram Vs. District Social Welfare Officer and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(85)AWC1918
S.U. Khan, J.1. After the elevation of learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4, notice was issued to him to engage another counsel. He did not engage any other counsel. Accordingly, at the time of hearing only arguments for learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were heard.2. Petitioner claims that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in C. T. grade in Jan Seva Bal Vidyalay, Shiksha Samiti, Ram Garh (Mathia), Ghazipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the school') on 15.2.1977. It has been stated in the writ petition that the school was recognised on 29.4.1981. It has further been stated that on 24.3.1995, petitioner was promoted as Headmaster on the ground that he was senior most teacher. The post of Headmaster had fallen vacant as the earlier Headmaster, Sri Ram Lal had been appointed in another school. It is stated that Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ghazipur approved the appointment of the petitioner as Headmaster.3. Annexure-8 to the writ...
U.P. Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Ist an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3527
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The workman was appointed as a 'Sahyogi' by an order dated 2.2.1984 for a fixed period till 31.3.1984 @ Rs. 10.77 per day. After the expiry of the period, fresh appointment orders were again issued for a fixed period and, in this manner, the workman continued to work without any break in service. By an order of 15.5.1984, the petitioner fixed the pay of the workman @ Rs. 245.00 per month plus dearness allowance and housing allowance. According to the workman, this was an order of regularisation which was passed after interviewing him and which was also approved by the U.P. Co-operative Institutional Services Board. On the other hand, the petitioner has refuted this allegation, and contends that the petitioner continued to issue short term appointment letters and that the last appointment letter issued to the workman, was dated 2.11.1985 which was till 31.3.1985. The workman worked till 31.3.85, and thereafter, no further extension was given and, in this manner, the...
U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf Vs. Town Area Committee and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(85)AWC1996
Pankaj Mithal, J.1. Heard Sri Rahul Sripat, learned Counsel appearing for the defendant-appellant and Sri M.K. Gupta with Sri Daga, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. The other respondents are only formal parties. They were other defendants to the suit who have not preferred any appeal and as such have accepted the decree of the lower appellate Court. The counsel for the contesting parties agree for the disposal of appeal in their absence. Accordingly, dispensing service upon respondents No. 2, 3/1 to 3/3 the appeal was heard on merits.2. The dispute in the suit giving rise to the present appeal is in respect of plot No. 80 (old No. 884 and 894) situate in village and kasba Sahapur, District Muzaffarnagar.3. The Town Area Committee, Sahapur in a representative capacity instituted original suit No. 99 of 1986 against Illiyas and Ors. for possession over the area marked in blue and red colour forming part of the aforesaid land as shown in the plaint map and for a decree ...
Smt. Jagbiri Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1322
Vineet Saran, J.1. The petitioner is an elected Pradhan. On a complaint lodged by the respondents No. 4 and 5 an enquiry was got conducted by the District Magistrate through the District Panchayat Raj Officer, who submitted his report on 14.3.2008. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the District Magistrate on 24.3.2008. The petitioner submitted her reply on 17.4.2008. Then by order dated 30.5.2008, passed by the District Magistrate exercising powers under Section 95(1)(g)(M) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner have been ceased and a three members committee has been constituted to perform the duties of the Gram Panchayat. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order this writ petition has been filed.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being ...
Chandrapal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3174
ORDERArvind K. Tripathi, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist, counsel for the opposite party and perused the record.2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 31-1-2009 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh in Criminal Case No. 11/11 of 2009, Chandrapal v. Chokhe Singh and Ors..3. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that when the first information report was not lodged by the Police then an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed. He further submitted that when the application was moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate was required to direct Officer In-Charge of Police Station for registration and investigation of the case. He further submitted that under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the provision is that any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation and the word may has to be read as shall hence the Magistrate was only required to direct for registration of the case. The Magistrate ha...
Ramji Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3495
ORDERVinod Prasad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.2. The applicant complainant Ramji Shukla has approached this Court with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 3-10-2008 passed by C.J.M., Allahabad in complaint case No. 23676/2008 (Ramji v. Sonu Agrawal), under Sections 279, 304A, 427 I.P.C., P.S. Naini, District Allahabad.3. A perusal of the complaint instituted by the applicant, vide annexure No. 1 to this application, before C.J.M., Allahabad, registered as complaint case No. 23676/2008 (Ramji v. Sonu Agrawal), indicates that the allegations levelled were that of causing murder of son of applicant Shivanshu aged about 16 years by crushing him under vehicle No. UP 70 AV 2700.4. It transpires that when the complaint was filed on 14-8-2008, C.J.M., Allahabad was apprise of the fact that in respect of the said incident, a FIR vide crime No. 371 of 2008, under Sections 279, 304A, 427 I.P.C. was already registered which is pending investigation....
Arvind Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)AWC1327
H.L. Gokhale, C.J.1. Shri Ashok Khare, learned senior advocate has appeared for the appellants. Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, learned standing counsel of the State of U.P., has appeared for the respondents.2. All these special appeals seek to challenge the judgment and order dated 6.5.2005, passed by a learned Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46812 of 2003 and other connected petitions, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein. Though the writ petitions have been dismissed, the learned Judge has declared the proviso to Rule 8(3) of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (in short 'Rules 1974') ultra vires the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution of India and quashed the same.3. All these appellants had applied in pursuance to an advertisement published on 2.6.2003 to fill up the backlog vacancies of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes on the posts of 'Constable (Ministe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »