Himachal Pradesh Court November 1966 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.
K.C. Kashyap Vs. Lieutenant Governor (Administrator) and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-1966
Reported in: AIR1967HP34
ORDEROm Parkash, J.C. 1. This is a petition, under Articles 226 and 311 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, Shri K. C. Kashyap, prays thatthe respondents be directed to appoint him as Head Assistant in the Industries Department with effect from the 4th September, 1962. The petition is based on the following allegations:-- 2. The petitioner entered in the service of the Himachal Pradesh Government in 1950. He was appointed as an Assistant in the Industries Department with effect from the 24th September, 1958. The petitioner ranked third in seniority in the seniority list of Class III.employees of the Industries .Department. The scale of pay of the Petitioner, as an Assistant, was Rs. 116-250. The pay scale was revised to Rs. 150-10-300 with effect from the 30th September, 1959. The petitioner was promoted as an Assistant at the Headquarters in the pay scale of Rs. 160-10-330 with effect from the 17th November, 1961. On the 4th Sept. 1962, on the recommendation of the Departmen...
Sohan Lall Vs. Smt. Dharampati
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-1966
Reported in: AIR1967HP38
1. This appeal is directed against an order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Mahasu. whereby he dismissed a petition of the appellant, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce from the respondent, his wife, on the ground that the respondent was living in adultery. The petition, which was filed on the 24th November, 1964, was based on the following allegations:--2. The appellant and the respondent were married on the 5th August, 1960. They had lived as husband and wife till May, 1963. The appellant was employed at Simla. The respondent used to live with his parents. In May, 1963, the respondent had left the house of the parents of the appellant against their wishes and had gone to live with her own parents. Though, the appellant and the respondent had never visited each other or cohabited, after May, 1963, yet the respondent was in an advanced stage of pregnancy. This fact clearly indicated that the respondent was living in adultery.3. The petition was resiste...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›