Himachal Pradesh Court January 2009 Judgments

L.C. Bhardwaj and anr. Vs. State of Himanchal Pradesh and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(1)ShimLC278

Rajiv Sharma, J.1. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this writ petition are that petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Junior Engineer on 7.3.1988. Petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Junior Engineer on 27.6.1981. In the State of Punjab, the pay scales of the Soil Conservation Inspectors/Agricultural Inspectors/Soil Survey Assistants/Research Assistants were revised from Rs. 700-1200 to 2000-3500. The pay scales of the Sectional Officers in the State of Punjab were revised from Rs. 700-1200 to 1800/ 3200 vide notification dated 24.7.1991. However, vide notification dated 30.6.1993, the Government of Punjab had re-designated the posts of Agriculture Inspectors/Soil Conservation Inspectors/Research Assistants etc. to Soil Conservation Officers and their pay scales were revised from Rs. 2000-3500 to 2200-4000 after 8 years of service and Rs. 3700-5300 after 18 years of service. However, the Sectional Officers working in Conservation wing were not granted this pay scale. The Sectiona...

Deepa Sharma Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Environment Protection and Pol ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(1)ShimLC329

Rajiv Sharma, J.1. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this writ petition are that vide advertisement which was published in 'Divya Himachal' on 30th April, 2006, applications were invited for filling up the posts of Junior Scientific Assistant. The minimum qualification prescribed as per the advertisement for filling up the posts of Junior Scientific Assistant was M. Sc. Degree 1st Class in Environmental Science/Chemistry/Biology from a recognized University or Institution with proficiency in computer. The last date for the receipt of the applications was 22.5.2006. The petitioner submitted application pursuant to advertisement. She was called for interview on 16.10.2006. Respondents No. 4 to 9 were selected for the post in question.2. Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate has strenuously argued that the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 is not in accordance with law. His precise submission is that respondent No. 4 was not in possession of the requisite essential qualifi...

High Court of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shri Manoj Kumar Bansal and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge setting aside the order of compulsory retirement passed against respondent No. 1 by the disciplinary authority.2. The undisputed facts are that respondent No. 1, a member of Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service, was served with a Memorandum of Charge dated 1.10.1997 charging him on twelve counts of misconduct. After enquiry, he was held guilty of the charges detailed below:Article of ChargesFindings of the Inquiry OfficerArticle-IThat the said Shri Manoj Kumar Bansal while functioning as Sub Judge-cum-Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,Sarkaghat during the period from 22.1.1996 to 7.6.1997 had procured the presence of Shri Bhalkhu Ram, Operator ofAuto Rikshaw No. HP-05-0209 through the policeofficials of the Police Station, Sarkaghat on 23.7.1996 in his chamberand engaged under pressure his Auto Rikshawfor carrying his wife daily from r...

New India Assurance Company Vs. Neelam Kumari and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(1)ShimLC469

Kuldip Singh, J.1. This appeal has been directed by the insurer against the award dated 3.12.2003 passed by Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Hamirpur in Case No. 2/97, awarding Rs. 3,22,088/- compensation to respondents No. 1 to 4 with a direction to appellant insurer to indemnify respondents No. 5, 6 and deposit the award amount within one month, failing which, there shall be an additional liability to pay the interest on the amount payable in accordance with law.2. The brief facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 to 4 being widow and minor children of Ram Pal, filed claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short Act) against respondents No. 5 and 6 owners and appellant-insurer of tractor No. HP-22-4952 on account of death of Ram Pal on 9.11.1996 while ploughing field of Mansa Ram. It has been alleged that Ram Pal aged 35 years was co-owner of tractor No. HP-22-4952 along with respondents No. 5 and 6, he was employed as driver on the tractor by responde...

Tara Chand Vs. State of H.P. and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Surjit Singh, J.1. Petitioner has sought judicial review of order, dated 31st March, 2004, passed in Original Application No. 1365 of 2000 by the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, whereby the said Original Application, filed by the petitioner and one more person, namely Ram Kishan Tanwar, proforma-respondent, herein, has been dismissed.2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the petition may be noticed. In the year 1988, the Government of Himachal Pradesh created two posts of Bastabardars, in the pay-scale of 300-430, in the Office of Deputy Commissioner Shimla. The posts were created in the pre-revised scale. Pay-scales of all the categories of employees of Himachal Pradesh were revised, w.e.f. 1st January, 1986, vide Himachal Pradesh Civil Service Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988. After revision of pay-scales, the petitioner and proforma-respondent were given the pay-scale of 750-1350. Petitioner and proforma-responde...

Himachal Road Transport Corporation Retired Employees Union Vs. Himach ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(1)ShimLC310

Rajiv Sharma, J.1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 19.6.2001 of the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal rendered in OA No. (D) 237/1996.2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the members of the petitioner's union (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners for convenience sake) retired from the service of the respondent-corporation prior to 5.6.1995. The respondent-corporation formulated a scheme called 'Himachal Road Transport Corporation Employees Pension Scheme, 1995' (hereinafter referred to as 'the scheme' for convenience sake). The scheme was implemented with effect from 5.6.1995. The petitioners were left out from the ambit of the scheme. The petitioners preferred an original application before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. It was primarily averred in the original application that the cut-off date i.e. 5.6.1995 has no reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved and the respondent...

State of H.P. Vs. Bishan Dass and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009CriLJ1926,2009(1)ShimLC304

Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.11.2001 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushehr, whereby he acquitted all the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 379, 430 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Property Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. On 3.3.1999, PW3 Sanjiv Kumar, Assistant Engineer, Irrigation & Public Health (IPH) Department Sub-Division, Kumarsain, filed a written complaint Ex. PW3/A with the Police Station, Kumarsain. In this complaint, it was mentioned that a water supply scheme had been newly constructed by IPH Department for covering the left out villages/hamlets of Gram Panchayat, Baragoan. This scheme was sanctioned after obtaining NOC from the Gram Panchayat and contract for its construction was awarded to Mr. Anurag. The construction was completed on 10.2.1999 and thereafter supply of water was made to the villages including...

Sushil Kumar Sehgal Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ719HP,2009(1)ShimLC291

Rajiv Sharma, J.1. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 27.2.1996. He was directed to file reply to the charge-sheet within a period of 15 days. He made a representation to the Deputy General Manager (Disciplinary Authority) on 21.3.1996 brining to his notice that the criminal case on the same facts was pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi in a case titled as State v. G.R. Bhatia and the present proceedings be deferred. The request made by the petitioner was turned down and he was granted 20 days further time to file the reply to the charge-sheet. He again brought to the notice of the disciplinary authority that till the pendency of the criminal case pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi the disciplinary proceedings be deferred vide communication dated 27.6.1996. The Disciplinary Authority appointed Sh. P.S. Saluja, Senior Manager as Inqui...

National Insurance Company and Hari Gopal Vs. Maghi Ram and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(1)ShimLC454

Deepak Gupta, J.1. These two appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of one Award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Shimla on 20.4.2005 in MAC Petition No. 17-S/2 of 2001. Maghi Ram, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, was travelling in a truck No. HP07-4227 owned by Shri Hari Gopal, hereinafter referred to as the owner, on May, 3, 2000. The truck met with an accident. The claimant filed a claim petition in which he alleged that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. According to the claimant he sustained multiple grievous injuries including fracture of left femur and left wrist. He also alleged that he had hired the truck for bringing empty apple wooden crates from Kalka. The owner and driver admitted the accident but denied that the same had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. The owner and driver of the truck who had filed a joint written statement de...

Mr. Dawa Gyaltsen Vs. Mr. Sonam Sangbo Jadur and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are Tibetans who are residing at Dharamsala. The plaintiff has filed this suit on the allegations that defendant No. 1 who was a Member of the Tibetan Supreme Justice Commission deliberately and with malicious intent undertook a course of conduct to malign the reputation of the plaintiff. According to the pleadings, the plaintiff pleads2. Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. that the acts constituting defamation attributable to defendant No. 1 are that he was proclaiming:(i) The plaintiff is not a loyal and a conscientious Tibetan citizen;(ii) The plaintiff stands ostracized from the Tibetan society as he no longer can vote or hold any elected office in the Tibetan society;(iii) The plaintiff is a convict and has been convicted by the Justice Commission whereas this is not the case and(iv) The plaintiff has been misdirecting and also willfully flouting the Rules under which a scholarship was awar...