Allahabad Court January 2011 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.
Shiv Ram Verma S.O. Late Sita Ram Verma Vs. Union of India Through Sec ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
1. The petitioner, who claims to be a freedom fighter, has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 30.7.2008, by which the respondent Union of India has refused to extend the benefit of freedom fighter. 2. It is an irony that for the second time, the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court under writ jurisdiction and that too, almost on the same ground which was the subject matter of scrutiny by this Court while deciding earlier writ petition No.964(M/B) of 2002. 3. The petitioner was born on 12.7.1929. In the year 1942, under Quit India Movement, he participated in the freedom struggle. According to the pleading on record, the petitioner joined the Quit India Movement and on 23.1.1943, he was arrested in connection with distributing the anti-government leaflets. He was detained in the lock-up and later on, released on 1.3.1943. Thereafter again, he continued with his crusade for independence and arrested in Distri...
Govind NaraIn Chaturvedi Vs. Dr.Raksha Goswami
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-2011
1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Facts of the present case are that applicant initially filed a Writ Petition No. 7473(SS) of 2005(Govind Narain Chaturvedi v. State of U.P. and Another). On 22.11.2005, Writ Court had passed an interim order, the relevant portion of the same is as under :- "The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the representation submitted by him he has not been promoted on Group C post. He is still stagnant on a Group D post. The petitioner has alleged that the quota meant for Group D employees is being filled up through direct recruitment by making back door entry or ad hoc arrangement. A formal regular process of promotion is required to be held. In the meantime, the concerned authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on a Group C post if he is otherwise fit, suitable and qualified for the post." 3. As pe...
Satendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-2011
1. By means of the impugned order the petitioner, who belongs to OBC, and was selected for class IV post in Adarsh Krishi Inter College, Saraul, District Aligarh, has been declined approval on the ground that the vacancy was unreserved and was also advertised as unreserved vacancy, yet the petitioner, who belongs to OBC, has been selected, which is not permissible in law. 2. It is contended that assumption on the part of the Joint Director of Education, Aligarh that the reserved category candidate cannot be selected against the unreserved vacancy is clearly illegal and contrary to what has been held by this Court in Sanjeev Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2007 (2) ESC 1042 (ALL)(DB) and the Apex Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 3 SCC 119. 3. Learned standing counsel, per contra, attempted to defend the order for the reasons stated in paras 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit, which reads as under: - "7. That in reply to the co...
Tukman Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is a person interested in respect of the land set out in the notification dated 3.11.2010 published in the Gazette of India on 9.11.2010 under Section 20A of the Railways Act 1989, as amended by the Railways (Amendment) Act, 2008, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Railways Act'). 3. According to the petitioner, in terms of Section 20A (4) of the Railways Act, the substance of the notification was published in the Newspapers, namely, Dainik Jagran and Amar Ujala on 18.12.2010. Considering that the substance of the notification was published in daily Newspapers on 18.12.2010 and that the date of publication of notification of Gazette of India was 9.11.2010, hence interested persons including petitioner have been prevented from filing objections, as it was beyond the period of 30 days and as such, the notification dated 3.11.2010 is liable to be set aside. 4. The case of the petitioner is that respondent no. 4 did not comply with ...
Ram Ashraya and Another Vs. State of U.P and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-2011
1. Heard Sri R.B.S. Rathaur, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the documents available on record. 2. Sri Saurabh Srivastava, Advocate learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 before final disposal of the case appeared before the court and filed written argument, which was taken on record. 3. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') has been filed by the accused-petitioners for quashing the order dated 9.11.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 3015 of 2010 (State VS. Anup Kumar and Others), under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow whereby he has rejected the application moved by the petitioners for staying the proceeding of above criminal case pending before him. 4. The only legal question involved in the pre...
HashmuddIn and Others Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Othe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-2011
1. Heard Sri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellants and Sri Manish Goel, learned counsel for the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India in both the appeals. 2. These two special appeals have been filed against the judgement and order of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 23rd March, 2010, whereby Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37610 of 2008 (Suresh Chandra Chaturvedi & others versus Life Insurance Corporation of India & others), and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28833 of 2008 (Manish Dwivedi & others versus Life Insurance Corporation of India & others) and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29166 of 2008 (Hashumuddin & others versus Life Insurance Corporation of India & others) have been disposed of under a common judgment. The petitioners have been permitted to approach the competent authority of the Corporation by making suitable representations within time specified and the competent authority inturn has been directed to consider the same by means of a speaking orde...
Ram Chandra Gupta Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-2011
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India making the following prayers: "a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and quashing the impugned orders dated 7.12.2004 passed by Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (Annexure No. 12 to this writ petition). b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay leave encashment along with interest @ 18% per annum since 30.9.1995 till the date of actual payment. c.Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay interest @ 18% per annum on C.G.E.I.S (since 30.1.1995 to August 1996), on security deposits, on the amount of back wages for suspension period (i.e. 30.5.1995 to 13.3.1999) and 18% interest per annum on gratuity. d. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the responde...
State of U.P. Vs. the P.O.Labour Court Lucknow
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-2011
1. Inspite of sufficient service no one has appeared on behalf of workman-respondent no.2 Dushyant Kumar. 2. Heard Shri S.P.Mishra, learned standing counsel for the State petitioner. This writ petition is directed against award dated 24.3.1992 given by Presiding officer, Labour court, U.P., Lucknow in adjudication case no.202 of 1990. The matter which was referred to the Labour court was as to whether the action of petitioner-employer in terminating the services of its workman-respondent no.2 with effect from 1.1.1989 was just and valid or not. The workman asserted that he was working under Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Construction division-2, Phool bagh, Kanpur petitioner no.2. In the impugned award it is mentioned that the petitioners who were opposite parties before the Labour court did not file any written statement. It is further mentioned that Executive Engineer had authorised Shri Mohammad Hassan, a clerk to do pairvi however, the reply/ written statement was filed by one, As...
Prem Prakash Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-2011
1. Heard Sri Prabhat Singh, Advocate for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2, Sri V.K. Upadhyay holding brief on behalf of Sri S.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5 and perused the record. 2. By means of the impugned order dated 07.04.2007 the District Inspector of Schools, Chandauli has held respondent no. 5 senior to petitioner on the ground that on the date of appointment of petitioner he was minor hence his appointment was not valid and, therefore, for the purpose of seniority petitioner cannot be treated senior to respondent no. 5. It is, however, not in dispute that the petitioner's appointment has not been revoked by District Inspector of Schools and still the petitioner is working. 3. It is not disputed that the date of birth of petitioner is 05.06.1956 and he was engaged as Class-IV employee on 01.07.1972 on a fixed pay of Rs. 25/- per month. At that time the institution concerned was not in grant-in-aid. It was brought in ...
Ram Dayal Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
1. Heard Sri G.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 7 and Sri B.C. Nayak, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 17. The respondents no. 8 to 16 were issued notice. Considering the service report dated 14.11.2007 and 16.10.2009, service on the respondents is deemed sufficient. They have not put in appearance nor are represented by any counsel. 2. The short question involved in this case is whether petitioner was entitled to be considered for regularisation in preference to respondents no. 8 to 17 in view of the provisions contained in U. P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 2001") which came into force on 21.12.2001; as directed by the Apex Court in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Putti Lal, (2002) 2 UPLBEC 1595. 3. The petitioner was denied regularisation on the ground that he did not work continuously from 1991 till 2001 hence...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »