Himachal Pradesh Court May 2011 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.
indu Rani Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-27-2011
1. The writ petitioners in these cases are aggrieved since the Government has not taken over their services while taking over the ICDS Project run by the 3rd respondent, Ankur Welfare Association, Gagret. Since the entire background of the appointment and taking over of the Project is narrated in detail in the reply, filed at the instance of respondents No. 1 and 2, for the sake of clarity and brevity, we may extract the same as such:- “1. It is submitted that the Department of Social Justice & Empowerment is implementing Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) scheme in the State since 1975. The scheme was first time launched by Government of India on 2.10.1975 through out the country in selected blocks on experiment basis. As per schematic pattern the scheme ws to be run by respective State Governments by setting up Integrated Child Development Project offices at Block level. Later, the scheme was expanded to more blocks in a phased manner. During the year 1994-95, Gov...
Rajesh Kumar Dharmani and ors. Vs. Ramesh Chandera Chajta and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-27-2011
1. Whether adhoc service followed by regular appointment will count for seniority is the short question arising for consideration in this appeal. The appellants are the respondents in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was filed challenging Annexure P-18, seniority list dated 22nd February, 2007, wherein the government had taken a stand that the adhoc/officiating service should count for seniority. The writ petitioners are the directly recruited Deputy Superintendents of Police, under the Himachal Pradesh Police Service Rules, 1973 and the respondents (appellants herein) are the promotee Deputy Superintendents of Police. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the adhoc/temporary/officiating service as Deputy Superintendent Police shall not count for the purpose of seniority and hence the appeal.2. Though the learned counsel on both the sides have extensively taken us through the factual position and legal proposition, in the nature of the view we propose to take ...
Smt. Savita Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-27-2011
1. The petitioner has assailed the communication dated 20.4.2005 Annexure A-1 with a prayer that respondents may be restrained from terminating the services of the petitioner with a further prayer to order the release of salary of the petitioner for two months. 2. The facts in brief are that petitioner was appointed as Cutting and Tailoring Teacher by selection board in village Churayan, Gram Panchayat Dhar Chandna, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla vide appointment letter dated 23.2.2005 Annexure A-4.The petitioner joined her duties as Cutting and Tailoring Teacher on 1.3.2005. After putting in service for almost two months, on 20.4.2005 her services were terminated by the respondents without any reason. She was not heard nor any opportunity of hearing was given to her. It has been alleged that communication dated 20.4.2005 was having some reference of Original Application No. 449 of 2005, but the petitioner was not served nor she was having any knowledge of original application. In the ...
Hem Raj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-27-2011
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for transfer of his case titled State vs. Hem Raj from the Court of the learned Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge), Mandi. The petitioner is in jail and the allegation made is that he had engaged the services of Mr. Naresh Kumar Sood, an Advocate from Kullu as defence counsel. On 28 th March, 2011, his counsel, Mr.N.K. Sood, had gone to Shimla to attend the Ruby Jubilee function of the High Court and also to attend the meeting of the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh and therefore, an application was filed before the learned Judge praying that the case may be adjourned to some other date as his counsel is not able to attend the Court on the date fixed. 2. The application was taken up on 28.3.2011 and the learned Judge after noticing the contents of the application, which is hand written, granted the adjournment. Thereafter, he goes on to record that the proceedings be instituted against Advocate Shri N.K. Sood before the Ba...
Durga Dev Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-27-2011
1. Petitioner, who as per record maintained by the respondents, was engaged as Beldar, on daily wages, in the year 1990, claims that in fact the work of a Clerk-cumTypist was being taken from him from the very beginning and, therefore, he is entitled to the wages of a Clerk-cumTypist and a direction be issued to the respondents to pay him the wages of a Clerk-cum-Typist, instead of wages of a Beldar, as are being paid to him. Also, he seeks regularization of his service, as Clerk, on completion of 8 years service, as a daily waged Clerk, instead of regularization as Beldar. 2. Respondents have controverted petitioner’s claim that he was made to work as Clerk-cum-Typist. According to them, he was engaged as Beldar and occasionally, work of Typist used to be taken from him. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon an Office Order, copy Annexure A-2E, which is dated 17.2.1998, in which peti...
Smt. Ajudhya Devi Vs. Surinder Kumar and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. The petitioner-Ajudhya Devi (hereinafter referred to as the DH) filed a suit against six persons who were defendants to the suit. In this suit it was claimed that the DH is owner in possession of the land comprised in khata No. 158, khatauni No. 184, khasra No. 432 measuring 17-22 sq. meters in Mauja Mangwain,Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi. It was alleged that the defendants, who are owners of the adjoining land, had encroached upon a portion of khasra No. 432 and raised a wall thereon and had blocked the passage and had also affected the easementary rights of light and air of the DH. 2. During the course of this suit, evidence was recorded and report Ext. PW2/A was proved by the Kanungo and Patwari and as per this report, it was found that the defendants had encroached upon 1-76 sq. meters of land belonging to the DH. The Tatima Ext. PB was prepared in respect of this land which was depicted as khasra No. 432/1. After discussing the entire evidence, the learned Trial Court held that...
Ajay Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. Reply and Power of Attorney, on behalf of respondents No.5 and 6, has been filed in Court. Be taken on record. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. Petitioner, who applied for the post of Assistant Primary Teacher alongwith respondent No.6, is aggrieved by the action of respondents No. 2 to 5, in not selecting him for the said post, but placing him in the waiting list, despite the fact that he was better qualified than respondent No.6, who has been selected. 4. Learned counsel, representing the petitioner, submits that petitioner was awarded only ½ mark out of 15 marks in viva-voce, while respondent No.6 was awarded 14 marks and this made the difference. According to him, petitioner was awarded half a mark only to eliminate him and respondent No.6 was awarded fourteen marks to place her above him (the petitioner). 5. There is nothing on record, suggesting that there was any hanky-panky in the award of marks in viva-voce. There is no allegation of malafide. 6. Another...
Promilla Bakshi Vs. Smt. Raj Devi and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. The petitioner by means of this petition has challenged the order dated 14.09.2010 whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Solan allowed the application filed by the respondents under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoned the delay in filing the appeal. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit against S/Shri Sohan Singh and Mohan Lal. Shri Mohan Lal admittedly died during the pendency of the case and his legal representatives where brought on record. They were also represented by a counsel. Shri Sohan Singh also unfortunately expired on 20.10.2007. After his death none appeared for him or for the representatives of Mohan Lal and finally the learned trail Court passed an ex-parte decree in favour of the plaintiff. This decree was passed on 16.1.2008. Appeal against the said decree was filed on 24.12.2008. Since the appeal was time barred the appellants preferred an application under Section ...
Suresh Kumar and Yash Pal Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. This petition is directed against the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala whereby he has dismissed the appeal filed by Shri Suresh Kumar and upheld the order of eviction passed by the Collector - cum- DFO Dehra, Forest Division, Dehra for removal of encroachment. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Range Officer, Dadasiba submitted a report that Shri Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Suram Chand had encroached upon Government land measuring 0.03.75 hectares and had raised a temple there upon. Suresh Kumar contested the petition and claimed that he was owner of the same by way of adverse possession and that the land had wrongly been shown belonging to the State of H.P. According to him villagers have been performing Puja in the temple. The learned Collector came to the conclusion that the construction had been raised in June 2006 and thereafter challan was filed. He, therefore, ordered the eviction of the respondent from the Government land. Appeal aga...
Dhaju Ram and ors.Vs. Surat Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are the defendants before the learned trial Court, against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.I, Paonta Sahib, in an application filed by the respondent/plaintiffs under order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC, vide which the application was allowed by the learned trial Court. 2. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. A perusal of the record shows that earlier also a suit for permanent injunction was filed in regard to this very disputed land comprised in Khasra No.5505/849. In that case also, there are specific findings under Issue No.5 that in between the land of the plaintiffs and the defendants, there existed a road. The present suit for possession has been filed by the plaintiffs claiming that some portion of the land owned by them is above the road and some portion is below t...