Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2008(3)MPHT56(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.This batch of matters deal with the non-payment, late payment, less payment of retiral dues, interest thereon, i.e., pension, gratuity, G.P.F. etc. of the retired employees.1. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that on 19-6-2006 in W.P. No. 1961/2006 (Smt. Keja Bai Chandrakar v. State Government and Ors.), this Court passed the following order:.In turn, the A.G. Office is getting incorrect information and not able to give authority letter at the time of retirement of an employee, therefore, a committee consisting of following officers is constituted:(1) Special Secretary (Finance), Chairman,(2) Any officer of the rank of Additional Secretary of Law Department, (Member),(3) Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, (Member),(4) Deputy Accountant General (Funds), Member,(5) Joint Secretary (General Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh), Member-cum-Secretary.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submit that pursuant to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2008(3)MPHT47(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 23-12-1997 (Annexure P-15) and order dated 12-1-1998 (Annexure P-16) whereunder, promotion of the petitioner to the post of Lecturer has been cancelled on the ground that the promotion has been made, without there being vacancy in science faculty.2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed as Upper Division Teacher with effect from 1st of November, 1985 till 25th April, 1986 on temporary basis. Thereafter, on 11th July, 1986 (Annexure P-2), the appointment of the petitioner was again made with effect from 15th July, 1986 till further orders, purely on temporary basis. The petitioner was thereafter promoted as Lecturer in science faculty which fell vacant on account of death of one Shri H.L. Jaggi. The respondent No. 3, on 13-7-1990 (Annexure P-8) passed an order that the petitioner has been appointed as Lecturer with effect from 9-7-1990 pursuant to the interview held on 8-7-1990. He...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2008(3)MPHT20(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:7.1. Quash the order No. F-7-26/2001/9/17, dated 10-9-2007, passed by Under Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Department of Health and Family Welfare (Annexure P-6).7.2. Direct the respondents to pay full back wages due to the petitioner treating the period to be period-in-service.7.3. Grant cost.7.4. Any other relief as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner working as Assistant Grade II, in the office of the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Kabirdham, was suspended during the pendency of the trial for having committed offence punishable under Sections 7,13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988') on 16-7-2002 (Annexure P-l), which was approved by the State Government on 17-7-2002. The petitioner was acqui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2008(3)MPHT117(CG)
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. The petitioners were appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade III in various schools under Janpad Panchayat Malkharoda on 17-7-1998 (Annexure P/1) and thereafter,they joined their services and started working. All of a sudden, the services of the petitioners were terminated on the ground that the selection itself has been cancelled by order dated 12-10-1998 (Annexure P/5) on account of several irregularities allegedly found in the selection process. This Court on 2-11-1998 ordered to maintain status quo, till the next date of hearing.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that on the strength of the order dated 2-11-1998 passed by this Court, the petitioners are still working as Shiksha Karmi Gradee-III in their respective schools.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/State does not dispute the factual position that the petitioners have been working since 2-11-1998 till today. The sole contention of the learned Counsel appearing for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2009ACJ1323; AIR2008Chh45; 2008(2)MPHT39(CG)
ORDERDilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. Heard finally.2. In this appeal arising out of an award dated 09-10- 2007 passed by the Twelveth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court), Raipur (henceforth 'the MACT') in Claim Case No. 34 of 2007, the short question which arises for determination is whether the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal erred in fastening liability on the appellant/insurance company to pay compensation as the respondent No. 3/driver did not possess a valid driving licence to drive a passenger carrying commercial vehicle.3. Admittedly, the respondent No. 3/driver possessed a licence only to drive light motor vehicle (for short 'LMV') and there was no endorsement on licence Ex.D-1 authorizing him to drive a transport vehicle or a passenger carrying commercial vehicle. It is also not disputed that that the offending bus i.e., Mini Bus bearing Registration No. C.G.-04/D/4509 (henceforth 'the Minibus') was insured as a passenger carrying commercial ve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : AIR2008Chh47
L.C. Bhadoo, J.1. Heard on admission.2. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are claiming to be 'Bhoriya' caste, have questioned the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 28-4-2005 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Adim Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas Vibhag, Raipur, whereby the learned Deputy Secretary gave direction to the effect that the memo dated 8-5-2003, issued by the State Government in connection with Bhoriya caste people who are residing in Korba District regarding issuance of certificate in the name of Bhariya Scheduled Tribe, stands cancelled with immediate effect.3. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that by Presidential Orders under Article 342 of the Constitution of India, the persons belonging to Bhariya.-Bhumia, Bhuihar-Bhumia, Bhumia, Bhariya, Paliha, Panodo, residing in Chattisgarh area were included in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2008(3)MPHT15(CG)
ORDER1. Heard on I.A. No. 3 filed by the respondents under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act, 1996') for referring the dispute to the sole arbitrator.2. The petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondents for transportation of petroleum products on 28th July, 2006 for period of 2 years. It appears that during this period some dispute arose between the parties and show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner regarding irregularities committed by him vide Annexures P-l, P-6 and P-10. Thereafter, contract was terminated by the respondents on 1,1 -5-2007 vide Annexure P-16. Same order has been questioned by the petitioner in this writ petition.3. Preliminary objection in the form of I.A. No. 3 has been filed on behalf of the respondents mentioning therein that the parties had entered into an agreement under which contract was awarded to the petitioner. It has been mentioned that as per Clause 16 of the agreement, an arbitration clause...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2008(3)MPHT61(CG)
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India against the respondents for the following reliefs:(i) that the respondents should comply with the judgment and decree dated 25th August, 2007 delivered by the learned Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 11-A/05 and act in accordance with law.(ii) that the respondent No. 2 should not issue licence to the owner of the petrol pump being operated over the land of the petitioner for any transferred place.(iii) that Contempt of Court proceedings be initiated against the respondents, penalty be imposed on the respondents and the same be awarded to the petitioner.3. Grievance of the petitioner is that No Objection Certificate issued by the respondents for operating petrol pump has been declared void by the judgment dated 25th August, 2007 by the learned Additional District Judge, Bilaspur. He personally apprised about the above judgment to respondent No. 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2008(1)MPHT109(CG)
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. By this criminal revision the applicant has impugned the order dated 15-4-2002 passed in Criminal Case No. 34/02 whereby learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mahasamund has allowed the application preferred by the non-applicant under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance @ Rs. 1,000/- per month to the non-applicant from the date of filing of the application.2. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the non-applicant's application for maintenance was allowed and the High Court vide order dated 7-11-1984 passed in Criminal Revision No. 25/83 directed the applicant to pay maintenance @ Rs. 200/- per month. Her application under Section 127 of the Code was further allowed by the Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund vide order dated 8-9-1997 passed in Criminal Case No. 106/90 and the applicant was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 400/- per month. Non-applicant further mov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : AIR2008Chh46; 2008(2)MPHT22(CG)
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. By this petition the petitioners have challenged the auction proceedings initiated by respondent No. 3-Sales Officer in respect of the mortgaged property of Late Shashibhusan and its subsequent confirmation by the Assistant Registrar (Admn.), Co- operative Societies, Ambikapur vide order dated 22-4-1993 of Annexure P-14.2. The case of the petitioners as reflected from the averments of petition and the documents annexed therewith is that the petitioners, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Shashibhusan, have filed this petition with the allegations that Shashibhusan was the owner of land bearing Khasra No. 218/1 (piece) area 1.700 hectare situated at Village Koilari, Tehsil Dhaurpur, District Sarguja (M.P.). He had borrowed a loan of Rs. 8,775/- from respondent No. 1-District Co-operative Land Development Bank, Ambikapur against various heads and made repayment of Rs. 1,500/- on 2-3-1977, Rs. 1,500/- and Rs. 3,250/- on 13-4-1977, Rs. 1,000/- on ...
Tag this Judgment!