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.
Kamla Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 11-I and II :- “I. Issue a writ of Certiorari and mandamus for the quashing the oral termination of petitioner dated 17.3.2010. II. Issue a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to allow petitioner to work as cook-cum helper in Government Primary School Batol, District Mandi (HP).” 2. In reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, the following stand has been taken vide paras 2 and 3 of the preliminary submissions:- “2. As per information received from the Block Elementary Education Officer, Sundernagar-II there is less than 25 students studying in Govt. Primary School, Batol (Sundernagar-II) and as per norms fixed by the Govt. there should be one Cook upto the strength of 25 students. So, the services of petitioner were terminated being junior in Government Primary School, Batol (Sundernagar-II) as per Govt. instruction vide letter No: EDN-H(EE)(4)4-17/2008-MDM Policy dated 29 th April, 2010 r...
Shekhar Semwal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 14th September, 2007, copy Annexure-A6A of Director, Ayurveda, whereby he has been sanctioned, ex-postfacto, leave without pay (without break in service), for 18 days, from 14th July, 2007 to 31st July, 2007, and also by the action of his Drawing and Disbursing Officer, who, on the basis of order Annexure-A6A, has recovered the salary, already paid, for the aforesaid period of 18 days. 2. Petitioner had been deputed for some training at HIPA, Fair Lawns Shimla, from 9th July, 2007 to 13th July, 2007. He was to have availed journey day on 14th July, 2007. 15th July, 2007 was a Sunday. He was supposed to have joined duty on 16th July, 2007, after attending the training. However, joining time, on account of some earlier transfer, was due to him. He informed District Ayurvedic Officer, Nahan, that from 16th onwards, he would be availing the joining time due to him, on account of his earlier transfer. After availing joining time, petitioner fell sic...
Sanjeev Chauhan Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. Petitioner is a doctor who has secured admission in the Post Graduate Medical Course. He has been in the service of the State on contract basis. The State has given special concession for the contract service doctors also by providing quota for admission to Post Graduate Courses. However, there is one subtle distinction between the regular in-service candidates and the contract/Rogi Kalyan Samiti candidates. The regular in-service doctors get study leave, whether they are in Government Medical Colleges or in private Medical Colleges, during the Post Graduate Courses, whereas the contract/ Rogi Kalyan Samiti doctors, if they serve in private medical colleges, do not get that benefit.At the outset, it has to be noted that the study leave is contemplated only as per the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972. Rule 2 provides that the Leave Rules would apply to Govt. servants appointed to the Civil Services and posts and that the same shall not apply to persons appointed on contract...
Shamsher Singh Vs. Chairman-cum- Managing Director, H.P. Ex-servicemen ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. The petition has been filed on the following prayer vide para 7(i): “7(i) That the impugned order dated 23.8.04 terminating the service of the applicant may be set aside/quashed & the respondents may be directed to reinstate/appoint the applicant as S/Guard on the same terms & conditions as he was working prior to his termination, with all consequential benefits.” 2. In reply, on behalf of the respondents, the following stand has been taken vide para 2 on merits: “2. That the contents of para 3 of the application are false, wrong and incorrect and hence denied. In fact the applicant was employed as security guard on contract basis for a period of one year from 16.2.2002 to 15.2.2003 by the respondent No. 1 being ward of Ex-Serviceman and needy person under the provisions contained in the guidelines issued by the Director General Resettlement, Army Headquarters, New Delhi stated supra on certain terms and conditions of service which were accepted and signed ...
Bhupinder Kumar Vs. Hari Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. This petition is directed against the order dated 9.2.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kasauli whereby she rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 CPC for stay of the suit. 2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for disposal of the case are that the petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 3-1/11 which was taken up by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kasauli. Plaintiff Bhupinder Kumar filed the suit against Narata Ram, Hari Singh and Mani Singh. Basic prayer in this suit was that the defendants be restrained from causing any interference, hindrance or obstacle in the enjoyment of the exclusive possession of the plaintiff over specific portion of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 268/5/1, 268/3 and 268/4 in Mauza Khadeen, Pargana Nali Dharti, Tehsil Kasuali, District Solan (H.P) and further they be restrained from interfering in the construction work being raised by the plaintiff Bhupinder Kumar. In the plaint it was admitted that the land w...
Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-18-2011
1. The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (i) and (ii):- (i) That the aforesaid illegal order of termination of services of applicant dated 7.10.2004 along with the order of appellate authority dated 14.3.2005 be declared null and void. (ii) That after declaring as such the respondents be directed to re-instate the services of the applicant.” 2. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 1 of the preliminary submissions:-“1. The present O.A. is not maintainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be dismissed. The applicant had earlier filed an O.A.(M) No. 19/2005 before this Hon’ble Tribunal and as the applicant had not filed any appeal under the Statute i.e. H.P. Home Guards Act, 1968 and Rules 1971, copies of which are annexed as Annexure R-I & R-II, this Hon’ble Tribunal had allowed the request of counsel for the applicant to withdraw the original application with liberty to file fresh one on the same cau...
Trig Detective Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sarita Devi and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-18-2011
1. Admit. The following substantial question of law arises in this petition:- “Whether the Officer, who has passed the order held the necessary qualifications required under the Employees Compensation Act and if not whether the award passed by him is without jurisdiction?” 2. With the consent of the parties the matter is disposed of today itself. 3. It would be pertinent to mention that this Court in CWP No. 1704 of 2010 after considering the amended provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 now renamed as Employees Compensation Act clearly held that the persons who are appointed as Commissioners to assess the compensation must hold the qualifications prescribed in Section 20 of the principle Act as amended. The essential qualifications are:- (1) That the persons should have been member of State Judicial Service for a period of five years; or (2) has worked as an Advocate or pleader for five years; or (3) has been a Gazetted Officer for not less than five yea...
Rajinder Sharma Vs. Sanjay Sharma
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-18-2011
1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.11.2010 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5,90,200/- against the defendant. According to the plaintiff he was engaged by the defendant on monthly salary of Rs.10,000/- besides other allowances and therefore, an amount of Rs.5,80,000/- was payable for which cheque had been issued by the defendant on 20.09.2010 but the said cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit claiming the principal amount alongwith interest. 3. Alongwith the suit the plaintiff filed an application under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC for attachment before judgement praying that the defendant may either be directed to furnish security for satisfaction of any decree which may be passed against him and further that till such security is furnis...
Smt. Om Kalra Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2011
1. This petition is directed against the order dated 8.4.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan in Civil Misc. Application No. 72-CM/6 of 2011 in Civil Appeal No. 33-CA/13 of 2007 whereby he allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 readwith Section 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit claiming that he has a right of ingress and egress from the stairs and varandah of the house of the defendant, since the entire property in question was originally owned by one owner, Smt. Saraswati Devi. In the plaint itself, the plaintiff had given details of the khasra numbers and all the khasra numbers were mentioned in the plaint. 3. The suit was dismissed and thereafter the appellant filed an appeal. When the appeal was ripe for hearing and about 3 years after the appeal was filed, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC wherein he basically added certain lines showing the different...
Ram Krishan Kaundal Vs. M.C. Shimla and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner was holding a post of Superintendent Grade-II in the year 2004 on the establishment of Municipal Corporation, Shimla, when vide order Annexure A-4, he was ordered to perform the duties of the Secretary, Tax Department because that post fell vacant on account of promotion of the incumbent of that post. The order was not for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Secretary, Tax Department nor was he appointed to that post, but was simply required to perform the duties of that post. The order made it clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to any additional honorarium or seniority benefit. 3. Petitioner claims that on account of his having been required to perform the duties of Secretary, Tax Department, which is equivalent to the post of Superintendent Grade-I, he is entitled to salary of that post. 4. Appointment to the post of Superintendent Grade-I is made by the State Government as the same is included in the provinciali...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »