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.
Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. Petitioner had been working as Head Constable in the Police Department in the year, 2003. He went on leave on 19.10.2003. On 26 th and 27 th October, 2003, when he was still on leave, he indulged in various acts of violence and use of criminal force. He and his brothers, who are employed as driver and conductor on a private bus, owned by petitioner’s wife, had pitched battles with a group of other bus operators, on the aforesaid two dates. Cases were registered against both the groups, at the instance of each other. Petitioner is alleged to have gone to Police Station at Arki at night and threatened the police officials and also indulged in rowdyism, when in the police station. A charge sheet was framed against him. Domestic inquiry was conducted and he was held guilty of the aforesaid acts of misconduct. His Disciplinary Authority, i.e. Superintendent of Police, Solan, visited him with the penalty of stoppage of two increments permanently. He also ordered that the period of ...
R.P. Jindal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. Petitioner had been serving as Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department till his retirement, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 30th April, 2005. In the year 2000, a Notification, copy Annexure A-4, was issued. As per this Notification, Assistant Engineers and certain other Officers of different departments had been placed in four-tier pay-scales, with effect from 1st January, 1996. The Notification said that the individual Officers could opt for a date different from 1st January, 1996, from which date four-tier pay-scales were introduced, by submitting their options, within two months of the date of Notification. Petitioner did not exercise any option. 2. On and with effect from 1st January, 2005, petitioner, on completion of four years service as Assistant Engineer, became entitled to be placed in higher scale of `10,025-15,100 in the four-tier pay-scales. A Notification, copy Annexure A-1, was issued on 14th July, 2004. Petitioner’s name figured in this No...
Devi Dutt Sharma and ors. Vs. H.P. University and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-25-2011
1. Petitioners are working in the Agro-Economic Research Centre, Himachal Pradesh University. The Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation has set up Agro-Economic Research Centre under the Himachal Pradesh University vide communication No.2/48/72/Econ.PY dated 28.12.1972. The expenditure of the Centre is borne by the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture. Initially, four Agro-Economic Research Centres were established under the Central Sector Scheme by the Ministry of Agriculture in the year 1954 at Visva Bharati, Santiniketan (West Bengal), Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, Pune (Maharashtra), Delhi University, Delhi and Madras University, Chennai (Tamil Nadu). Presently, there are 12 Agro Economic Research Centres and 3 Agro Economic Research Units situated in different States. Primarily, these institutions conduct agro economic research studies on various issues/topics as may...
Bhupinder Singh Gill Vs. Secretary Hpseb Ltd. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-25-2011
1. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned Annexures- PH and PL dated 24.4.2010 and 16.9.2010 may kindly be quashed and set-aside; (ii) that the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the petitioner, the arrears of salary as per the pay fixed vide Annexure-PC and also to calculate and disburse the retiral benefits and pension to the petitioner as per the pay fixed vide Annexure-PC alongwith the corresponding revision from time to time; (iii) that the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner may also be called for; and (iv) any other relief as may be deemed just and proper keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Inspite of several opportunities reply has yet not been filed by the respondents. Notice in the petition was issued on 30.11.2010 and reply was to be filed within two months. On 8.3.2011 petition was admitted in the presence of the learned couns...
Birbal Dass Vs. Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Board a ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-25-2011
1. Respondent No. 1 has issued an advertisement on 28th August, 2008 to fill up the posts of Lecturers (School Cadre) in the subject of Commerce. Petitioner being eligible and qualified, applied for the same and was assigned Roll No. 31022. He belongs to SC/IRDP category. He appeared in the written examination and was called for interview on 18.06.2010 vide Annexure P-1, dated 20.05.2010. The result was declared by the respondent vide Annexure P-2-A on 27.07.2010. Petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act qua question papers alongwith his O.M.R.. The same was supplied to him vide Annexures P-3 and P-4. 2. Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has answered questions No. 81 and 111 rightly, however, he has not been given marks for the same. According to him, right answer to question No. 81 was option ‘B’ and not ‘A’, as given in Key answer. He also submitted that the right answer to questio...
Gurbaksh Singh Vs. Hoshiar Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs Smt. Kesri Dev ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-24-2011
1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.7.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. II, Amb, closing the evidence of the defendants/petitioner by order of the 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. The petitioner is the defendant before the learned trial Court and a perusal of the record shows that some opportunities were given to the petitioner to produce his evidence, which was not produced and on subsequent dates, affidavits of the witnesses were filed and time was given for cross-examination of the defendants. A perusal of the record shows that on 17.4.2009, the defendants’ witnesses were present, but request was made on behalf of the counsel for the plaintiff for cross-examination, which was granted. However, it was mentioned...
Mohan Lal and anr. Vs. Smt. Ressi Devi
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-24-2011
1. The present review petition has been filed under Order 47 C.P.C. read with Sections 114 and 151 C.P.C., for review of the judgment and decree dated 15.7.2010 passed by this Court in RSA No. 248 of 2000. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 3. The grounds taken for the review of the judgment and decree passed by this Court are that the respondent had no right to challenge the validity of the Will and there has been mis-appreciation and mis-construction of the pleadings of the parties and material on record. The grounds taken by the petitioners are not covered under Order 47 C.P.C. and no case is made out under Order 47 C.P.C. for review of the judgment and decree passed by this Court. 4. The petitioners are at liberty to file SLP before the Apex Court against the judgment passed by this Court. The review petition is dismissed accordingly, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any....
Amit Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-24-2011
1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner herein who has been accused for offences under Sections 376, 452 IPC and Sections 3(i)(xi)of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The case against the petitioner is that on 23.3.2011 the prosecutrix lodged a report with the Police Station, Barmana, that on 22.3.2011 at about 8.30 A.M. she was alone with her children in the house as her husband had gone to participate in `Nalwari Fair’ at Bilaspur. The case is that her house is in an isolated place. Her husband did not return and at around 9.00 P.M. she went to sleep, but at about 1.30 A.M. on the intervening night of 22nd/23rd March, 2011 the accused knocked the door and the moment she opened it he pushed her inside and committed sexual intercourse on her person without her consent. She was frightened and rang up her husband. Her husband rushed to his house and reached there at around 2.15 A.M. She disclosed the facts to her husban...
Devinder Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-23-2011
1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer that FIR No.4 dated 2.8.2010, under Sections 429/120-B IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered with Police Station, Anti Corruption Zone, Shimla and the order passed by the learned Special Judge(Forest), Shimla on 2.8.1010 (Annexure P-8) summoning the accused for 15.9.2010 may be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence. Detailed submissions have been made by the learned counsel as to how initially in the First Information Report the name of the petitioner does not figure and lateron he has been summoned as an accused. The ground urged is that while passing the order Annexure P-8, the Court did not consider that the building has been leased out by following the proper procedure. There was a valid lease deed between the University and the petitioner. Mo...
Om Parkash Gupta Vs. H.R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-23-2011
1. Petitioner has prayed mainly for the following reliefs:- “(i) To set aside and quash the orders, dated 22-1-2001 as contained at Annexure P-1 supra and also set aside and quash the orders, dated 7-10-2005 as contained at Annexure P-10 supra; (ii) To direct the respondents No. 1 to 3 to promote the applicant to the post of Cashier with effect from 22-1-2001 in the pay scale of Rs.4020- 6200 with all consequential benefits and place him senior to the respondent No.4 in the category of the Cashier and further to promote the applicant to the post of the Junior Auditor with effect from 7-10-2005 with all consequential benefits. (iii) To direct the respondents No. 1 to 3 to grant proper place in the seniority list as contained at Annexure P-2 supra at Sr. No. 48 on the basis of the total length of service.” 2. Annexure P-1 is the order dated 22.1.2001 promoting private respondent Raj Kumar as a Cashier on regular basis and Annexure P-10 is his further order of pr...