Himachal Pradesh Court June 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.
Durga Dass Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. Petitioner was called for interview for the post of Language Teacher on 24.4.2001. He was offered appointment letter on 1.4.2002 pursuant to which he joined his duties on 2.4.2002. Respondent No.3 sent a letter to respondent No.4 not to permit the petitioner to join his duties on 1.4.2002. Petitioner had assailed Annexure P-4 dated 1.4.2002 before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 589/2002. The same was disposed of by the learned Tribunal on 12.4.2002 by treating the same as representation to be decided by the Deputy Director of Education within ten days. He decided the same on 1.5.2002. 2. Ms. Archana Dutt has strenuously argued that the petitioner was duly eligible and qualified to be considered for the post of Language Teacher and as such his appointment could not be cancelled. 3. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has strenuously argued that the petitioner was not possessing the minimum qualification prescribed in the Recru...
Sunil Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. The petitioners by means of this petition have challenged the order dated 18.9.2002 whereby the Revision Petition filed by them under Section 154 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, was dismissed. 2. The undisputed facts are that consolidation proceedings took place and in such consolidation proceedings a scheme was prepared. However, the petitioners and the respondents who were cosharers got their own land partitioned at the spot not in accordance with the scheme of consolidation but by respecting the possession of the parties. On 10.4.1985, this partition was effected in the presence of all the land owners and the same was effected at the spot. All the parties stated that they did not want to get the land demarcated and accordingly passed a resolution directing that their partition be recorded in the consolidation proceedings. 3. The case of the petitioners is that though such settlement was arrived at, possession was not actually delive...
Achhar Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. Petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar in the respondent-department in the year 1984-85. His services were regularized as Chowkidar on 01.01.1998. He submitted his date of birth at the time of his regularization as 23.12.1948 on the basis of Annexure P-C. A complaint was filed against the petitioner by one Shri Randhir Singh. According to him, the date of birth of the petitioner as per the school leaving certificate was 16.07.1942. The Assistant Engineer, IPH Sub-division, Baldwara conducted the preliminary inquiry. It was noticed during the course of preliminary inquiry that the petitioner has furnished false certificate of his date of birth. According to preliminary inquiry, the petitioner had studied at Government Primary School, Bharari up to fourth standard. According to the school leaving certificate produced, the date of birth of the petitioner was 16.07.1942. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner under Rule-14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. Shri S.N. Dhiman,...
Preet Kaur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. Petitioner filed an Original Application, before erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, seeking issuance of a direction to the respondents to treat her date of birth as 13.4.1955, instead of 14.2.1945, and to accord her all consequential benefits, flowing on account of the aforesaid change in the date of birth. On the abolition of the Tribunal, matter has come to this Court and it has been registered as CWP(T) at No.11539 of 2008, in the relevant Register. 2. Case of the petitioner is that she was engaged as a Labourer, on daily-wage basis, by respondent No.4, i.e. General Industries Corporation Ltd., in the year 1982. When working as daily-waged labourer, she was required to submit some form, regarding Employees’ Family Pension Scheme. In that form, her date of birth was recorded as 14.2.1945. Services of the petitioner were regularized on 2.1.1998 and she was appointed, on regular basis, as Class-IV employee. Appointment letter was issued, which is Annexure A-1. The a...
Vayasan Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner’s husband was an employee of Forest Department. He sought voluntary retirement, in the year 1997. His request was acceded to and he was retired, w.e.f. 31st January, 1997. It appears that after voluntary retirement, departmental proceedings were initiated against the husband of the petitioner. Those proceedings remained pending till the death of the husband of the petitioner, which took place on 10th September, 1999. It was after the death of the husband of the petitioner that pension and gratuity were sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. Though the husband of the petitioner, during his life time and soon after his voluntary retirement, had applied for grant of pension, gratuity and commutation of pension, but the matter had been in correspondence between the State Government and the Accountant General, so long as the husband of the petitioner was alive. 3. After the death of the husband of the petitioner, when pension had be...
Arvinder and anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. This application has been preferred by the petitioners herein seeking their release on bail for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case alleged against both these petitioners is that on 10.5.2011 FIR was recorded that the complainant was an agriculturist and father of six girls. One has been married and Kiran (prosecutrix) is studying in 10+2. She was born on 8.4.1995. 3. On 9.5.2011 at around 8 PM at night, Kiran served meals to him and carpenter Sunder Lal. After sometime, his wife Ganga Devi informed him that some people have taken away Kiran in a pick-up van. He asked her fromwhere she had got this information, upon which she told that she was imparted this information by Vinod Kumar. He stated she informed him that she saw one boy standing near the roof of their house and he suspected that he was the person who had kidnapped his daughter. He thereafter informed the Pardhan and went in search of the girl. They stopped one pick-up vehicle bea...
Suresh Kumar Sharotri Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner is a Non-Medical Trained Graduate Teacher, working in Education Department of the State of H.P. He was working in Government School at Banoori, in December, 2001, when order Annexure A-1, transferring him to Government High School, Dramman was issued.In compliance with that order of transfer, he was relieved by the Principal of Banoori School, vide order Annexure A-2, which is dated 17.1.2002. After availing joining time, he submitted joining report on 28.1.2002, to Headmaster of Dramman School. Headmaster of Dramman School wrote to Deputy Director (Education), Kangra at Dharamsala, that there was no post of Non Medical Trained Graduate Teacher in his school and sought clarification, vide letter dated 28.1.2002, copy Annexure A-4.There was no response to Annexure A-4. A reminder was, therefore, issued on 13.2.2002, which is Annexure A-5. Then there was an order, Annexure A-6, dated 12.4.2002 and the petitioner was transferred to Bindr...
Naveen Chand Sood Vs. Suman Kaushal
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. On 19.10.2007, the petitioner Naveen Chand Sood filed a suit against Shri Manmohan Shankar, his wife Smt. Suman Kaushal and Smt. Satya Devi wife of the petitioner, who was proforma defendant in the suit. The allegations in the suit were that the suit land measuring 0-44-89 hectares is jointly owned by all the parties to the suit. It was further alleged that defendant No.2 Smt. Suman Kaushal and Ms. Shivani Sood daughter of the plaintiff had entered into a partnership deed on 16.11.2004 to open a business of service station styled as M/s S.K. Motors on a portion of the suit land. According to the plaintiff, defendant No.2 on behalf of S.K. Motors requested the plaintiff to raise a building and gave a letter in writing to the plaintiff in this behalf. The plaintiff raised a loan from the Punjab National Bank for construction of the building and all the defendants swore an affidavit stating that they have no objection to the plaintiff raising a loan for construction of the building. Th...
Dina Nath Dhawan and anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, in order to maintain the clarity, the facts of CWP No. 157/2010 are being taken into consideration. 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of these petitions are that the name of the petitioner was registered in the First Register of Pharmacists, under section 31 (a) (b), (c), (d) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for brevity sake) on 28.8.1969. Thereafter the same was renewed for life time; in the year 1983-84, vide Annexure P-2. Respondent No.3 has taken a decision on 26.5.2009 to carry out renewal after every five years and the same was to be carried lotwise and periodically. Renewal fee for the same is to be ` 500/- up to six months and with late fee of ` 50/- per month up to six months from the date of renewal. Thereafter, public notice was issued by re...
Mast Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 20.9.2005 Annexure A-7 alongwith a direction to the respondents to release the salary of the petitioner for the period from 1.10.2004 to 28.2.2005 alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was transferred from Govt. Middle School, Jorna under complex Govt. High School, Sari to Govt. Middle School, Chilla on 13.7.2004. The petitioner challenged the transfer order before the erstwhile Tribunal and on 20.8.2004 the Tribunal had stayed the operation of transfer order. The petitioner continued to work in Govt. Middle School, Jorna in view of the stay granted by the Tribunal. 3. The Original Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default on 1.10.2004, but the Original Application was restored on 2.11.2004. In the meantime, the petitioner fell ill and he submitted his joining alongwith medical fitness certificate and copy of the order dated 2.11.2004 passed by the Tribu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »