Court : Allahabad
Arun Tandon, J.1. 'The darkest place is under the candle stick' or more appropriately 'It is darkest beneath the candle' is a proverb that was taught at elementary school. Nothing can be more apt to describe the prevailing situation with regard to appointment of Class IV employees in the establishment of the High Court both at Allahabad as well as Lucknow. The Court has been informed on behalf of the Registrar General of the High Court that there exists no record of any advertisement having been published for appointment on Class IV posts. At least for the last 25 to 30 years, no advertisement has been published and to put it more exactly, the rule has been observed in its fullest breach since the promulgation of the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service & Conduct) Rules, 1976 (herein after referred to as Rules, 1976).2. What logically follows is that for last nearly three decades, appointments in the establishment of High Court at Allahabad as well as Lucknow ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
S.S. Chauhan, J.1. The present petition has been filed for quashing of the proceedings of P.A. Execution Case No. 21 of 2005 including the judgment dated 24.8.2009 passed by the opposite party No. 1 and further a writ of mandamus to the opposite party No. 1 not to proceed with P.A. Execution Case No. 21 of 2005 and not to evict the petitioners from the premises in dispute.2. The facts in brief, which give rise to the present petition are that a shop situate at Station Road, Raibareli on nazul plots No. 1488, 1491 and 1492 of which Ram Swaroop, grandfather of the petitioners was tenant and after his death, the tenancy was inherited by their father late Krishna Nand Mishra. Plot Nos. 1489, 1490, 1493, 1494 and 1495 are nazul plots and lease in respect of all these plots were given to Gauri Shanker and Laxmi Narain with effect from 1.9.1919 to 31.3.1949. Subsequently, Laxmi Narain sold his lease hold rights in the aforesaid plot Nos. 1488, 1491 and 1492 under a registered sale deed with t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
S.S. Chauhan, J.1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed, inter alia, on the ground that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 16.5.2005 by opposite party No. 4, on which an order was passed by the Judicial Magistrate for registering the F.I.R. against the petitioners on 2.9.2005. The said order was challenged before the revisional court vide Criminal Revision No. 191 of 2005 and the revisional court passed an interim order on 5.9.2005 staying the operation of the order dated 2.9.2005 and finally the revision was allowed and the order passed by the Magistrate was set aside by means of judgment and order dated 15.2.2007. It is alleged that in the meantime a letter dated 6.5.2005 was written by Sri Anil Sant, the then Secretary, Social Welfare to the Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar for registering the F.I.R. against the petitioner and others, upon which the Circle Officer, Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar on 21.10.2005 has directed the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Shishir Kumar, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri D.K. Upadhya, Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent-State.2. The petitioners have approached this Court for the following reliefs:i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Opposite Parties to hold the selection as per advertisement dated 01.11.2008 and U.P. Procedure for direct recruitment for Group C post (outside the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002.ii) to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties to allow the petitioners to participate in the selection process as per advertisement dated 01.11.2008 and U.P. Procedure for direct recruitment for Group C Post (Outside the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission ) Rules 2002.iii) to issue such other order or direction which is deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case this Hon'ble Court may also be issued in favour of the petitioner in the ends of just...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Devendra Kumar Arora, J.1. The petitioner, M/s. Rauzagaon Chini Mills, by means of Writ Petition No. 7394 (MS) of 2009 has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 21.12.2009, passed by Special Secretary, Government of U.P., Department of Sugar Industries & Cane Development (respondent No. 2) as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. It has further sought a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to continue to operate the Barwa Cane Centre of Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. Faizabad as per the Cane Reservation Order dated 5th November, 2009, passed in favour of the petitioner Chini Mill.2. The other petitioner, namely, K.M. Sugar Mills Ltd. has also sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 21.12.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority (respondent No. 2) as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition to the extent it assigns one part of the Cane Purc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
S.S. Chauhan, J.1. Since the common question of facts and law are involved in both the revisions, therefore, they are being heard together and decided by a common judgment.2. These revisions have been filed challenging the orders dated 01.03.2008 and 19.04.2008 whereby Applications No. 22C of 2003 and 23C of 2003 for reviewing the awards dated 06.03.2003 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petitions No. 135 of 1994 and 136 of 1994 have been rejected.3. The facts in nutshell are that Vinod Kumar Vaish, husband of revisionist No. 1 and father of revisionist No. 2 of civil revision No. 40/08 and Arun Kumar Vaish, husband of revisionist No. 1 and father of revisionists No. 2 to 4 of civil revision No. 70/08, met with an accident while travelling in Maruti Van No. DDD-3903 which collided with Truck No. URA-4735 coming from opposite direction. Three persons including Vinod Kumar Vaish and Arun Kumar Vaish died on the spot and four persons received injuries. FIR of the said occurrence was lodged a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. This First Appeal From Order has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 17.8.2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Aligarh M.A.C.T. No. 192 of 1999.2. Sri A.C. Nigam appearing on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company has assailed the award by submitting that the claimants could not prove rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question since the PW-1 Dharmendra Kumar was not an eye witness and no reliance could be placed on the first information report. He has further submitted that there was no cogent evidence on record with regard to the income of the deceased and in the absence of the driving licence the Insurance Company could not be held liable to pay the compensation.3. We have considered the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and award. The Tribunal had framed the issues and issue No. 1 was with respect to rash and ne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. As the common question of facts and law involved in the above mentioned cases, they are taken up together for common orders.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.3. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 29.5.2008 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Agra dismissing the petitioner from service invoking the provisions of Rule 8(2)(b) of the U.P. Subordinate Police Officers Punishment & Appeal Rules, 1991 [hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1991 for the sake of brevity] .4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was always appreciated by the higher authorities for his good character, utmost devotion and dedication in the department but the impugned orders of dismissal of petitioner's services are not based on the correct facts of the case vis-a-vis the same are violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2010(3)AWC2388
S.P. Mehrotra and Sanjay Misra, JJ.1. This first appeal from order has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 17.8.2009, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Aligarh in M.A.C.T. No. 192 of 1999.2. Shri A. C. Nigam appearing on behalf of the appellant-insurance company has assailed the award by submitting that the claimants could not prove rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question since the P.W. 1 Dharmendra Kumar was not an eye-witness and no reliance could be placed on the first information report. He has further submitted that there was no cogent evidence on record with regard to the income of the deceased and in the absence of the driving licence the insurance company could not be held liable to pay the compensation.3. We have considered the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and award. The Tribunal had framed the issued and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. This writ petition arises out of a judgment and order dated 13.08.2009 passed by U.P. State Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 1496 of 1998.2. Heard learned Counsel for State and perused the impugned judgment, pleadings and also the documents annexed with writ petition.3. Respondent, for the first time, was posted as Sales Tax Officer on 16.04.1991. During the course of his service in 1998-99, he was posted on deputation with the Backward Class Welfare Department as an Officer at Jaunpur. On not being given complete charge, he got himself repatriated to his parent department. On inquiry, the Chief Development Officer, Jainpur could not find any irregularity against the petitioner. However, when the respondent was posted at Banda, he received a letter dated 03.02.2001 informing him that on account of certain irregularities a departmental proceeding has been initiated against him. Respondent submitted reply dated 31.08.2001 and was given personal hearing on 07.01.2002. To ...
Tag this Judgment!