Allahabad Court November 2010 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.
Suresh Chandra Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
1. learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.08.2009 has referred the following questions of law, to a Larger Bench of this Court, in view of the doubts expressed qua the legal position as stated by another learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 30.01.2009, passed in the case of Roop Chandra vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No. 52720 of 2007). "(a) Whether the Government Order dated 19th April, 2006, as explained by the Government Order dated 23rd November, 2007, is valid and being prospective in nature will have no application to the employees who retired prior to the date of issuance of the Government Order. (b) Whether an employee, who had opted for retiring at the age of 60 years, like the petitioner, without availing the benefit of gratuity, can now be permitted to turn around and claim gratuity after his retirement in view of the Government Order dated 19th April, 2006." 2. Under order of the Hon'ble The Chief Justice dated 04.09.2009 this Bench has been constituted...
Rakesh Kumar Tiwari Vs. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University and O ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
1. Heard Sri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Gulrez Khan for the petitioner, Sri G.K. Singh, appearing for respondent No.6 and Sri B.D. Mandhyan appearing for the respondent University. 2. Counter affidavits on behalf of the University as well as on behalf of respondent No.6 have been filed to which rejoinder affidavits have also been filed. Supplementary counter affidavits on behalf of the University as well as respondent No.6 have been filed to which rejoinder affidavits have also been filed. Pleadings being complete between the parties, with the consent of the parties, we proceed to decide the writ petition finally. 3. Brief facts of the case, as emerge from pleadings of the parties are; an advertisement being Advertisement No.4/2000 was published by the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'University') in the newspaper inviting applications for the post of Lecturer in different departments including four posts of ...
Rohit Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
1. List revised. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not present. 2. Heard learned A.G.A. Shri Devesh Vikram, Shri R.P.Singh learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 3. This petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report of Case Crime No.434 of 2010 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C. PS. Kotwali, District Bareilly. 4. From a perusal of the First Information Report the allegations made in the First Information Report are prima facie disclosing the cognizable offence. There is no good ground to interfere with the impugned First Information Report and the prayer for quashing the same is refused. 5. However, considering the fact and circumstances of the case it is directed that in case the investigation is pending, the petitioner shall not be arrested till the submission of police report but the petitioner will co-operate with the investigation. In case the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has b...
Anwar Ali and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
1. List revised. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not present. 2. Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 3. This petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report of Case Crime No.117 of 2010 under sections 498A, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, PS. Sahaswan , District Badaun. 4. On the request of learned counsel for the petitioners this matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court. The report of the Mediation Centre shows that both the parties are not willing in mediation. 5. The allegations made in the First Information Report are prma facie disclosing the commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. 6. In view of the above, there is no good ground to interfere with this case and the prayer for quashing the impugned First Information Report is refused. The interim order dated 25.2.2010 is hereby vacated. 7. However, considering the fact and circumstances of the case it is directed that in ca...
Committee of Management, Inter College Sarsena, Sachuee, District Mau ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
1. This petition has been preferred by the Committee of Management through Rajendra Singh as Manager of Inter College Sarsena, Sachuee, District Mau, assailing an order dated 18.10.2010 whereby the District Inspector of Schools has proceeded to revoke the proposal of suspension of Respondent No.5 - Shiv Sahai Singh claiming himself to be the Head of the Institution. The District Inspector of Schools has simultaneously imposed an order of single operation of accounts under Section 3 (3) of the U.P. Act No.24 of 1971 Act. 2. The petition has been heard with the assistance of Sri Siddharth Verma for the respondent No.5 and learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who have stated at the Bar that they do not propose to file a counter-affidavit in view of the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed. 3. Sri Khare, at the very out set on instructions received, contends that the present writ petition is confined to a challenge to the order imposing the single operation of ...
Satendra Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
1. List revised. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not present. 2. Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 3. This petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report of Case Crime No.15 of 2010 under section 498A, 323 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, PS. Palimukimpur, District Aligarh. 4. On the request of learned counsel for the petitioners this matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court. The report of the Mediation Centre shows that the mediation has been completed but no agreement could be arrived in between the parties. The allegations made in the First Information Report are prima facie disclosing the commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act. 5. In view of the above, there is no good ground to interfere with the case and the prayer for quashing the impugned First Information Report is refused. The interim order dated 9.3.2010 is hereby vacated. 6. However, considering the fact and circu...
Smt. Uma and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
1. List revised. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not present. 2. Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 3. This petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report of Case Crime No.917 of 2009 under Sections 498A, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, PA. Atmatdaula, District Agra. 4. On the request of learned counsel for the petitioners this matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court. The report of the Mediation Centre shows that both the parties are not willing in the mediation. The allegations made in the First Information Report are prima facie disclosing the commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A, 506, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. 5. In view of the above, there is no good ground to interfere with the case and the prayer for quashing the impugned First Information Report is refused. The interim order dated 25.2.2010 is hereby vacated. 6. However, considering the fact and circumstances of the case it is directed that in c...
Ashok Kumar Madheshiya and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
1. We have heard Sri C.B. Yadav, senior counsel assisted by Sri Aditya Kumar Singh for the petitioners; Sri Pankaj Saxena, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2; Sri Ashok Khare, senior counsel assisted by Sri S.K. Tyagi for respondent Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7 and Sri P.S. Baghel, for U.P. Public Service Commission. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the decision on their representation with regard to determination of their seniority on the post of Engineers in Zila Panchayat. 3. By the impugned order, the Special Secretary, Government of U.P. has, while deciding the objections of the petitioner to the tentative seniority list, found that since three reserved posts of OBC category were filled up by selection of the petitioner in pursuance to advertisement No.6/1997-98 dated 4.11.1997, in respect of item No. 7 of the advertisement as a special class of vacancies (for which a separate select list was declared on 27.7.1998), the Explanation to Section 5 of the U.P. Government Servant Seniority Rules, 19...
Ajay Kumar Vishwakarma Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-2010
1. The appellant, who was selected for the post of Shiksha Mitra, had come before this Court praying for quashing of the order dated 07.05.2010, whereby the District Magistrate, Hamirpur has set aside the selection of the appellant for the post of Shiksha Mitra in the Institution in question. 2. Sri L.P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the District Magistrate and the learned Single Judge, who has dismissed the writ petition, both fell in error inasmuch as respondent no.4-Amit Kumar was under age keeping in view the year of recruitment/selection for which the selections were to be held. He submits that the vacancy came into existence on 31.01.2006 and, therefore, the year of recruitment/selection as defined under the relevant Government Order governing such appointment would be the 1st July, 2006, on which date respondent no.4-Amit Kuamr was admittedly less than 18 years of age. 3. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 Mr. Gupta submits that the date of birth of resp...
Smt. Sumitra Dhuliya Vs. Director of Education and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-2010
1. Smt. Sumitra Dhuliya served on the post of Professor in Central Paedological Institute, Allahabad ( in short, 'CPI, Allahabad), upto the age of 58 years, and retired on superannuation on 31.3.1996. She claimed benefit of Government Order dated 21.3.1984, providing that those teachers, who are engaged in teaching in Government institutions, will be entitled to continue till the end of the academic session i.e. 30th June of the year during which they are going to retire, if their date of birth falls between 2nd July and 29th June of the academic session. She was not given the benefit of the extension of service provided by the Government Order dated 21.3.1984. She filed the writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the Director of Education (Madhyamik), U.P. Lucknow-respondent no.1, and the Additional Director of Education (Madhyamik), Education Directorate, UP Allahabad-respondent no. 2 to extend her services upto 30.6.1996. By an interim order dated 29.3.1996 she was p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »