Chhattisgarh Court January 2016 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.
Sadhna Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Revenue a ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
CAV Order 1. Magnificent question of law that has cropped up for consideration in this writ petition is whether the State W.P.(S)No.1762/2014 Government is justified in impliedly excluding married daughter of the affected/displaced family from consideration for employment under the Chhattisgarh State Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, as amended, on the ground of her marriage. 2. The above-stated question of law arises for consideration in the following factual matrix of the case: - 3. The petitioner's father Itwar Singh was the owner of land bearing Khasra Nos.73/2, 105/1 and 106/2, total area admeasuring 1.16 acres situate at Village Madwamouha, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba. These lands were acquired by the State Government in exercise of the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the LA Act') for dumping ash products oozing out from the power unit owned by respondent No.2 Chhattisgarh State Electricity Production Company Limited and ultimately, award w...
Kamlesh Shukla Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Healt ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-14-2016
Order On Board 1. Claiming issuance of writ of quo warranto directing 5th respondent Dr. Ramesh Chandra Arya to show cause under what authority he continues to hold the office of Associate Professor (Pathology) in Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences, petitioner herein Kamlesh Shukla has filed this writ petition. 2. Brief facts shorn of unnecessary details requisite to resolve the controversy are as follows: - 3. The Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS), which was earlier under the control of Guru Ghasidas (State) University, advertised the post of Associate Professor (Pathology) on 20-9-2006. Respondent No.5 applied for the said post. Recruitment to the said post was governed by the Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998 (for short 'the MCI Regulations') issued by the Medical Council of India (MCI) in which eligibility qualification prescribed for the post of Associate Professor / Reader is five years' experience in recognized ...
Dwarika Prasad Patel and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, through the ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-13-2016
Cav Order 1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in the above four writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners herein have questioned legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 5-2-2015 by which their services from the post of Rural Medical Assistant (RMA) have been terminated by the Director, Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, and respondents No.5 to 8 have been appointed in place of the petitioners on the post of Rural Medical Assistant. 3. The above-stated challenge has been made in the following factual matrix of the case incorporated herein-after: - 4. The Directorate of Health Services, Chhattisgarh issued an advertisement on 19-8-2013 for appointment on 741 posts of Rural Medical Assistant (for short 'the RMA'). Total 104 posts were reserved for Other Backward Classes (OBC) out of which 31 posts were reserved for women on the basis of 30% horizontal and compartment-wise reservat...
Sunshine Caterers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tri ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-04-2016
Cav Order 1. Superb question of law involved in this batch of writ petitions is whether the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is justified in holding that Commission Vendors engaged by the petitioner/its predecessors-in-interest for selling its food products can be considered to be its employees for the purpose of Section 2 (f) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the EPF Act'). 2. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed these writ petitions questioning the order passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Appellate Tribunal') dated 11-5-2011 (Annexure P-1) in all the four writ petitions by which the Appellate Tribunal has affirmed the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Raipur, deciding the applicability dispute and consequently, determining the amount due under Section 7A of the EPF Act...
M.L. Dewangan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Co-ope ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-04-2016
Order on Board 1. Invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking writ of mandamus or suitable direction to respondent No.2/Registrar, Co-operative Societies for appropriate amendment in the service rules in the light of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.2133 of 2011. 2. In Writ Petition (S) No.2133 of 2011 (Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Employee Sangh and another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), this Court struck down Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Ke Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Karamchari Sewa (Niyojan, Nibandhan Tatha Unki Karya Esthithi) Niyam, 1982 as unconstitutional and illegal, pursuant to which and direction given in WP (S) No.1727 of 2012, respondent No.3/Bank has issued the memo to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 25.2.2013 and has proposed certain amendment in the Staff Service Rules. 3. Since no decision has been taken by respondent No.2, who is rule mak...
The General Manager, UCO Bank and Another Vs. Shri Jitendra Kumar Shri ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jan-04-2016
CAV Order: 1. Renowned issue that emanates for consideration in this writ petition is whether the employer (petitioners herein) is justified in forfeiting the amount of gratuity payable to the employee (respondent herein) on the ground of his dismissal from service without his conviction by jurisdictional criminal Court for an offence involving moral turpitude within the meaning of Section 4 (6) (b) (ii) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter called as PG Act ) ? 2. The above-stated question arises for consideration in the following factual matrix incorporated hereinbelow:- (i) The respondent/employee of the petitioner-Bank was charge-sheeted for having unauthorizedly accessed storage data of Saving Bank Accounts of depositors with a fraudulent intention and upon conclusion of full-fledged departmental inquiry, disciplinary authority by its order dated 31.8.2010 reached at a finding, agreeing with enquiry report, that the employee has caused by his misconduct, irreparable da...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›