Himachal Pradesh Court April 2011 Judgments
Ms. Rajni Bala Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2011
1. Respondent-State has initiated the process for filling up the post of T.G.T. (Acts) in the year, 2006. Petitioner also submitted an application for considering her candidature. She was called for interview on 04.11.2006. Thereafter, the suitability of the petitioner was adjudged and she was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher vide office order dated 30th March, 2007 in the pay scale of 5480-8925/-. She was posted in High School, Khalogi. However, the respondent No. 3 has refused to accept the joining of petitioner. 2. Mr. A.K. Vashishta, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that action of the respondents of not permitting the petitioner to join her duties in sequel to Annexure A-8 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has vehemently argued that the name of petitioner was included in the select list erroneously and the same was rectified later ...
Tag this Judgment!H. R. Chauhan Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- (a) Quash the impugned order Annexure A-1 issued arbitrarily, malafidely and illegally by the respondents; (b) Direct the respondents to permit the applicant to continue in the post of Secretary being held by him presently; (c) Quash the appointment of the respondent No. 4 as Secretary; (d) Direct the respondents to produce all the relevant documents alongwith reply for perusal by this Hon’ble Tribunal; (e) Allow the cost of this O.A.; (f) Pass such other order or directions as deemed fit and proper in favour of the applicant. 2. Annexure A-1 is the office order dated 21.8.1999 of which petitioner is aggrieved of. The same is reproduced as under:- “Whereas Shri S. R. Verma, Secretary retired from the post of Secretary of the Union on 30.11.1994 and due to this Shri H. R. Chauhan, Superintendent/Accounts Officer was temporarily ordered to take charge of the Secretary of the Union. Whereas the finding and result of the enqu...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Devi and ors. Vs. Transport Commissioner and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. By means of this appeal the claimants claim enhancement of compensation and also challenge the findings of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that the accident in question was due to the contributory rash and negligent driving of the deceased and driver of Bus No.HR-03PA-0107. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that claimants Krishna Devi and Mela Ram are the parents of the late Shri Atma Ram. It is not disputed that Atma Ram was employed as a driver of Mohindra vehicle No.HP-12-8586 by respondent No.6, Zamila. Admitted facts are that on 5.9.2002 a head on collision took place between the vehicle driven by deceased Atma Ram and Bus No. HR-03PA-0107 which was coming from Baddi side. In the claim petition it was alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The learned Tribunal held that both the drivers were equally responsible for the accident. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-...
Tag this Judgment!Alka Vs. Ms.Sharda and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. By means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has laid challenge to the order dated 3.8.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Solan in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.19-S/14 of 2009 whereby he allowed the appeal of the respondent No.1-plaintiff and passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo quathe nature and possession of the suit land. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit against the present petitioner and the other proforma respondents. Inthe suit, it was alleged that Jawala was the predecessor-in-interest of the parties to the suit and after his death, his property was inherited by his son Partap Singh and his widow Roop Dei in equal shares.Partap Singh also expired and his property was inherited by his two sons Yogesh Kumar, Upender Kumar, his widow Indira Devi,defendants No.1 to 3 respectively and his mother Roop Dei in equal shares. The plaintiff alleges that...
Tag this Judgment!Jeet Ram Chandel Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. Petitioner was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher in Gandhi Public School at village Kiara, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla. The State Government has taken a decision to take over the School, as per the averments contained in the petition, on 12th March, 1990. Since the services of the petitioner has not been taken over, he filed an Original Application bearing No. 547 of 1992 before the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The same was directed to be treated as representation. The representation was rejected on 15th December, 1992. Petitioner again approached the learned Tribunal by way of Original Application No. 595 of 1993. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 07.10.1994, quashed the order dated 15th December, 1992 and ordered the appointment of the petitioner as Trained Graduate Teacher immediately anywhere in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher on 31st October, 1994. Since the petitioner has not been ...
Tag this Judgment!Subash Kapila Vs. Devi Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Court No. (VII), Shimla whereby he rejected the application filed by the petitioner for impleading the Municipal Corporation, Shimla as defendant No.2 in the suit. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit praying that a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction be passed against the defendantrespondent. He also claimed for a decree of mandatory injunction. The main grievance of the petitioner was that construction has not been carried out as per the sanctioned plans and is being carried out in violation of the Municipal norms. The defendant No.1 took preliminary objection that the Municipal Corporation is a necessary party to the suit. Thereafter the replication was filed and the case was listed for petitioner's evidence on a couple of occasions and it was only thereafter that the application was filed. The applica...
Tag this Judgment!State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Madan Lal
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. Both these appeals filed by the State are arising from a common judgment of acquittal of the respondents passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent Madan Lal and attempted rape against Harish Kumar, hence taken up together for its decision. 2. In short, the prosecution case can be stated thus. In the year 1996, the prosecutrix was a student of 7th standard studying in Government High School, Syari. 2. (i) On 14.6.1996, respondent Madan Lal resident of Jathia-Devi had sent a message through a boy to the prosecutrix to meet him next day. On 15.6.1996 at about 7.30 am, the prosecutrix was standing on the side of the road while on her way to school. 2.(ii) Respondent Madan Lal came driving Maruti Van bearing No.HP-02-3239 from the side of JathiaDevi temple. He stopped it near the prosecutrix. She was asked to sit in the said vehicle. She occupied the front seat beside Madan Lal and took the ve...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Chand Vs. Kangra Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. This Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 26.7.2010 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Hamirpur in Rent Appeal No. 4 of 2008. 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent-landlord (hereafter referred to as ‘landlord’ for convenience sake) filed petition, under section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity sake) against the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as ‘tenant’ for convenience sake) before the Rent Controller, Hamirpur on the following grounds: 1. “The respondent has not paid the rent as damages since October, 1996 till date for use and occupation of the demised premises at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. 2. The building has been burnt in devastating fire on 21.3.2002 in which the first floor was completely burnt and the roof of the ground floor was partially burnt. Even otherwise the &...
Tag this Judgment!Hoshiar Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner, who was employed as a driver with the Health Department of the State, praying that order (Annexure- A/1 to the petition) passed by the Chief Medical Officer, Kangra on 7.4.2005, directing recovery of Rs.1,29,020/- from his pensionary benefits, be quashed and set aside. 2. This order was passed on the basis of the judgment passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-(I), Kangra at Dharamshala, in M.A.C. Petition No.36-D/II-2002, decided on 9.8.2004. The petitioner herein was arrayed as respondent No.2. The first respondent was the State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary Health. 3. In that case, it was alleged and proved on the record that on 6th January, 2001 at around 10.50 A.M. when the petitioner therein Shri Amit Thapa was riding a scooter and proceeding to his house to Yol, when Jeep No.HIK-794 being driven by the petitioner herein dashed with the scooter causing the accident resulting in fracture of the left leg of th...
Tag this Judgment!Tanam Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
1. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Record Keeper in the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 19.9.2001.He is now working inthe Registry of this Court.Respondent-State had taken a decision to grant secretariat allowance to its employees.The Record Keepers working in the Registry of this Court at the relevant time were also granted the secretariat allowance on the basis of notification dated 8.10.2001. Petitioner was not given the secretariat allowance.He made a representation for the redressal of his grievance.The same was rejected.He filed original application bearing O.A.No. 744/2004 in the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance. O.A. No. 744/2004 was allowed by the Tribunal on 18.5.2005. Operative portion of the judgment dated 18.5.2005 reads thus: “For the reasons aforesaid, we see force in the contention of the applicants.Both the OA Nos. 662/2004 and 744/2004 are accordingly allowed to the extent that a s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »