Himachal Pradesh Court May 2007 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.
Mohan Lal Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)ShimLC140
Sanjay Karol, J.1. This judgment is being dictated in open Court in the presence of the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The respondent set up a primary school at Village Ghaton, Post Office Barag, Tehsil Sangrah, District Sirmaur some time in the year 1969. The said school was upgraded as Middle School in 1991. Vide Notification dated 26th February, 1999 issued by Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Education), Government of Himachal Pradesh ordered upgradation of said school from Middle to High level. This was of course subject to the accommodation being made available by the local residents. Various residents including the petitioner contributed by donating land and raising construction and providing accommodation for the school. In all 5 Bighas 5 Biswas of land was donated by petitioner himself and out of the contributions put in by the local residents, additional rooms were constructed and in all there are seven rooms, Verandah, two toilets, water tank, play ground and other facilities ...
Telecom District Manager Vs. Raj Kumar and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR36],2007(2)ShimLC118
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. This petition is directed against the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh (herein after referred to as the Tribunal) dated 31.3.2004.2. The necessary facts for the adjudication of this petition are that the Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide letter No. L-40012/ 215/99/IR(DU) dated 21st October, 1999 has referred the following dispute to the Tribunal which is reproduced as under:Whether the action of the Telecom District Manager, Hamirpur (HP) in terminating the services of Shri Raj Kumar son of Sh. Roop Lal w.e.f. 1-8-1996 and again w.e.f. 10-11-1998 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?3. The workman had been engaged in two spells. The first spell was w.e.f. 29.9.1995 as daily rated labourer upto 31.7.1996 when his services were terminated and thereafter w.e.f. 1.8.1996 to 10.11.1998. The thrust of the submission made by the workman before the Tribunal was that the petitioner's ear...
Pradip Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)ShimLC56
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. By medium of this petition the petitioner is seeking directions to the respondents No. 5 and 6 to release the pay scale as is payable and admissible to the similarly situated lecturers of Government Institutions.2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as lecturer in respondent No. 6 College in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 with basic pay of Rs. 2,200 per month plus usual allowances. The petitioner made a representation to the respondent No. 6 on 11.6.2002, copy of which was also endorsed to the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent No. 3 University, stating therein that he is entitled to the pay scale as recommended by University Grant Commission as per the Rules and Regulations of the H.R University. He also pointed out in his representation that the pay scales have been revised with effect from 1996. The representation was reiterated by the petitioner on 9.7.2002. In sequel to the representation sent by the ...
P.C. Katoch Vs. the Principal, Regional Engineering College and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2007
Reported in: 2008(I)ShimLC102
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. After arguing at length, Mr. Dushyant Dadwal submits that his client was not eligible at the time of filing of the writ petition for being promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Deputy Registrar, but during the pendency of the writ petition, he has become eligible for consideration for promotion. Mr. Dushyant submits that his client will be satisfied if this Court directs the respondent No. 1 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar from the feeder category of Assistant Registrar(s) due to subsequent developments.2. Mr. Kapil Dev Sood has vehemently opposed the prayer made by Mr. Dushyant Dadwal and submits that there is no prayer made by the petitioner in this petition for considering him for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar and the subsequent events cannot be taken into Consideration.3. I have perused the record and heard the parties. This Court has wide di...
Himachal Pradesh Mahila Vikas Nigam Vs. Jerath Electronics
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)ShimLC26
Surjit Singh, J.1. These two applications, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, are being disposed of together, as the same award, i.e. award dated 17.3.2005 given by the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Revenue & Appeals), Himachal Pradesh, who had been appointed as such by the Nominee Judge of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on a petition filed by M/s. Jerath Electronics and Allied Industries Pvt. Ltd. (respondent in Arbitration Case No. 51 of 2005 and applicant in Arbitration Case No. 53 of 2005) has been challenged thereby.2. First, the facts necessary, for comprehending the questions involved may be noticed. H.P. Mahila Vikas Nigam (applicant in Arbitration Case No. 51 of 2005 and respondent in Arbitration Case No. 53 of 2005), hereinafter referred to as Nigam, made certain Bye-laws, called 'Himachal Pradesh Mahila Vikas Nigam Bye-laws for Financial Assistance, 1989'. Clause 5(b) of these...
Battan Singh Vs. State of H.P. and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)ShimLC428
Surjit Singh, J.1. This regular second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:1. When the predecessor in interest of plaintiff-appellant_ is shown in possession over the land in question in the Jamabandi for the year 1954-55, in the absence of any legal order to negative the earlier entries showing ownership and possession whether the presumption attached to them or the earlier entries would take precedence over the latter entries?2. Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in refusing the appointment of Local Commissioner and rejecting the prayer for inspecting the spot merely on the ground that the case remained pending for six years.3. Whether it is always essential for a person claiming adverse possession to show that his possession was notorious and was in the knowledge of the person claiming title thereof?4. When there is a dispute regarding the title whether the Court of limited jurisdiction i.e. Revenue Officers have the jurisdiction to initiat...
Rajinder Kumar and ors. Vs. Bhakra Beas Management Board and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ShimLC279
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. By medium of this writ petition, office memorandum dated 21.8.2002 is assailed.2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioners were appointed as Pressure Filter Attendants in the pay scale of Rs. 770-1440 at Civil Sub Division No. 1, Slapper of the BBMB Power Wing. The case set out by the petitioners is that though they have been appointed as Pressure Filter Attendants yet they had been discharging duties of Pump Operators but they were being paid wages of Pressure Filter Attendants.3. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that on the basis of various representations made by the petitioners individually and through their Union, a conscious decision was taken by the respondents to re-designate the petitioners vide Annexures P-4 and P-5 but with a rider 'immediate effect'.4. Mr. N.K. Sood, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that the decision has been taken vide Annexures P...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›