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.
Baldev Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para No. 7 (i) to (iii):- “7 (i). The respondents may be ordered to give the regularization to the applicant w.e.f. 1.1.1998/1.4.1998 (and not from 13.5.2004 (notional basis w.e.f. 5.12.2002) after 18 years of service) on the post of ‘Pump Operator’ with all the benefits incidental thereof, such as arrears of pay and seniority etc.. Alternatively, the similar order which was passed by this Hon’ble Court in O.A. 150/1996 titled as Gurnam Singh v/s State of H.P. & others, may also be passed in the present case. (ii). That the respondents may be directed to regularize the service of the applicant after creating a post of ‘Pump Operator’ with all benefits from due date. (iii). That the respondents may be directed to give the work-charge status to the applicant exactly after 10 years of service. 2. In the reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 6(1) on merits:- &ldquo...
Dr. Baldev Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. Petitioner was appointed as Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari on 1.9.1990. He obtained his M.D. Degree in the year 1990. He was transferred to the post of Lecturer vide notification dated 20.10.1997 from Kakkar to Rajiv Gandhi Government Ayurvedic College, Paprola. He joined his duties on 10.9.1997. 2. Mr. J.P. Upadhaya has strenuously argued that his client was entitled to get benefits under F.R. 22 (c). He has also argued that the post of Lecturer was higher vis-à-vis the post of Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari and his client should be deemed to be regularly promoted to the post of Lecturer on the basis of his post-graduation degree, which his client obtained in the year 1990. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore has vehemently argued that the petitioner has been appointed by way of transfer strictly as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified on 26.5.1997. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Respondent-State was also directed to file ...
NaIn Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. Petitioner retired after attaining the age of superannuation as Deputy Ranger on 30 th November, 2003. However, a sum of ` 45,905/- was withheld from the Death-cumRetirement Gratuity of the petitioner. 2. Mr. R.S. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the action of the respondents of withholding of a sum of ` 45,905/- from the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, thus violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He then contended that his client has been exonerated of the charges by the Inquiry Officer. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that a sum of ` 45,905/- was only withheld due to the pendency of inquiry against the petitioner. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Respondent-State was directed to disclose the status of inquiry initiated against the petitioner. The learned Deputy Advocate General has plac...
Dr. D.K. Verma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7(i) and (ii): “7 (i) That the notification dated 19.9.2003 may be declared legal and valid and the applicant may be held as Principal for all intents and purposes with all consequential benefits. (ii) That the impugned notification dated 7.10.2003 (A-13) and dated 23.10.2003 (A15) may be quashed and set aside.” 2. In reply, on behalf of respondent No. 1, the following stand has been taken vide para 3 of the preliminary submissions: “2. In reply to this para, it is submitted that the applicant after convening the DPC meeting, he was promoted to the post of Principal. However after issuing the order, it has come to the knowledge of the Government that some facts which were mandatory were not taken into consideration such as being a selection post a panel has to be drawn of at least three persons who fall within the zone of consideration which has not been done, passing of the departmental examination is ...
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and ors. Vs. Rajinder Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. Both these appeals arise out of the same judgment and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The appellant has sustained injuries on the allegations made as proved before the Tribunal which resulted in amputation of his right leg which resulted in severe handicap and he seeks to establish this disability by certificate Ex.PW-4/A certifying that he has suffered 70% disability. 3. On the evidence on record, learned trial Court adverting to the decision in Kaushnuma Begum and Others vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and Others, 2001 ACJ 428, has apportioned the liability between drivers of the offending vehicle, namely, Himachal Road Transport Corporation bus, in which the deceased was traveling, as also other vehicle owned by respondent No.4 Rameshwar Singh and driven by Lokinder alias Tashi. 4. A number of submissions have been made by learned counsel appearing for the parties on the rival contentions. Adverting to the first primary objection, it is urged that the medical certific...
Kirpa Ram Gazta Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. Petitioner was working as TGT in the Education Department of Himachal Pradesh, on 12 th June, 1987, when an order, promoting him as Head Master, copy Annexure A-1, was issued. The promotion was on adhoc basis. He assumed the charge of the post to which he was promoted, on 30 th June, 1987. On 1 st August, 1987, he exercised option, under FR 22-C, for fixation of his pay from 1 st August, 1987, when he was to have earned an increment in the pay-scale of the post, from which he was promoted. Pay fixation was done vide order, copy Annexure A-2. The order said that the benefit of option will be permissible only when petitioner’s promotion was made regular. 2. Petitioner was appointed on regular basis, as Head Master, vide order dated 31 st October, 1994, copy Annexure A-5. The order said that regular promotion was to be effective from 28 th October, 1991. Petitioner was not given the benefit of option exercised under FR 22-C, read with Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs...
Smt. meera devi and ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. Notice. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard. In view of the grounds taken in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, the delay in filing the application under Order 22 Rule 3 & Rule 9(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure is condoned. The application stands disposed of. Notice. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard. Not contested. The legal representatives of the deceased petitioner mentioned in para 2 of the application are permitted to be brought on record as petitio...
Ashok Kumar Vs. Urmila Devi and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. Petitioner approaches this Court against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- (1), Kangra at Dharamshala, affirming the judgment and order of the learned trial Court allowing the application filed by the wife and the minor praying for an increase in maintenance. 2. The learned Court, on the grounds urged and evidence on record holds that the maintenance was granted initially on 20.3.2003 and this requires to be revised because of the circumstances which have been brought on the record of the case and duly considered by the Court below vide a detailed order. One of them being that the minor has been admitted to a public school and it is not possible to maintain him on Rs.500/- per month. The order specifically directs that the amount to be paid from the date of the application. This order was challenged in revision which was dismissed straight on the ground that the altered circumstances have been established by the respondent herein and that there is no ground ...
Shyama Devi Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. Petitioner’s father died in harness on 13.6.2003. Petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate basis after the death of her father. Petitioner was called upon to supply the certificate of non-employment and income certificate before 28.7.2004. She submitted the same to the competent authority. However, as per supplementary affidavit filed by the respondent-Board, the petitioner has been appointed as Clerk on daily rated basis on 2.2.2006 and she has joined her duties on 14.2.2006. 2. Ms. Archana Dutt, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the petitioner being a graduate should have been offered the post of Clerk on regular basis instead of daily rated basis. She has given the instance of one Ms. Anita Mahajan, who also has lost her father and has been appointed on regular basis as Clerk on compassionate basis. 3. Ms. Anjula Khajuria, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that since the petitioner has not ...
Netar Singh Vs. Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pr ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. Petitioner was appointed as Craft Teacher on 2 nd February, 1968 and after acquiring higher academic as well as professional qualification, he was promoted as Trained Graduate Teacher with effect from 21 st June, 1976. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Lecturer on 11 th July, 1988. Thereafter was promoted as Headmaster on 26 th September, 1998. He has foregone his promotion to the post of Headmaster on 26 th November, 1998 vide Annexure A-1. However, the petitioner was again promoted as Headmaster on 23 rd November, 2002 and was relieved by the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Hatgarh on 9 th December, 2002. 2. Mr. T.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that once his client had foregone his promotion to the post of Headmaster on 26 th November, 1998, he should not have been promoted again as Headmaster on 23 rd November, 2002. He further contended that the petitioner was required to be considered for promotion to the post of P...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »