Jharkhand Court November 2001 Judgments
Central Rainfed Upland Rice Research Station, Hazaribagh Vs. Union of ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-29-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR218]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The writ peti-tion has been preferred by management of Central Rainfed Upland Rice Research Station. Hazaribagh against the Award dated 12.7.1999 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 15/90 whereby and whereunder the dispute as was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication was answered in favour of workmen represented by 3rd respondent. Anusandhan and Farm Mazdoor. Union, Hazaribagh and directed the management-petitioner to regularise the services of all concerned workmen and to pay them the arrears of wages from 1990 till date as admissible to chowkidar, peon and other category within a stipulated period.2. The petitioner, Central Research Station. Hazaribagh, is a sub-station of Central Rice Research Institute. Cuttack an Autonomous Body under Indian Council of Agricultural Research and a society under the Societies Registration Act.The 3rd respondent on behalf of 81 workmen raised...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Vihari Vs. Birla Institute of Technology and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-29-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR452]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order of suspension-cum-chargesheet dated 16th September, 1999 issued by the order of Vice Chancellor, Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi -'B.I.T.' for short. The petitioner has also challenged the letter dated 8th October, 1999, whereby and whereunder, the 5th Respondent: Satish Bakshi, Advocate, Ranchi has been engaged us one man enquiry committee to conduct the enquiry.2. The ground taken by the petitioner to assail the order of suspension-cum-chargesheet is that the order is without jurisdiction and has been issued because of bias on the part of the Respondents.3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as an Assistant Professor on 16th September, 1971 with seven advance increments in the B.I.T., Mesra. It was declared as a deemed University by the Central Government on 28th August, 1986. He has unblemished career and clean service record throughout his service period, but for the reasons best known to ...
Tag this Judgment!Nandji Singh and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-20-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR576]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. In all these writ petitions, as common Notification of Transfer No, 318(2) dated 18th August, 2001 is under challenge, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Petitioners, Dr. Nandjee Singh of W.P. (S) No. 3970 of 2001 and Dr. Satyarain Singh of W.P. (S) No. 4054 of 2001, while challenged the Notification of transfer on the ground that they have been transferred outside the Medical Teaching Cadre, petitioner Dr. Ram Sewak Sahu of W.P. (S) No. 4028 of 2001 has challenged the same on other ground.3. For determination of the question raised by some of the petitioners, it is necessary to take into consideration the relevant facts, as emerged from Notification dated 21st May, 1997 issued by the State.The State Medical Service was commonly known as Bihar Health Service. The teaching posts were available with Medical Colleges which were ex-cadre posts and had no separate cadre. The eligible members of the Bihar Health Service use...
Tag this Judgment!Kulwant Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-20-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC105
ORDERBy the Court 1. This writ application is directed against the order dated 14.3.2001 passed by respondent No. 3 Joint Transport. Commissioner, Jharkhand. Ranchi in case No. 2/2001 whereby he has rejected the claim of the petitioner for exemption from road tax in respect of the vehicle being Coal Dumper bearing registration No. BR 17G 4865 for the period from 2.3.1998 to 21.10.2000 and also for a direction upon the respondents to allow the exemption of tax to the petitioner for the aforesaid period and issue fitness certificate.2. Petitioner's case is that on the relevant date, the Dumper in question was engaged for carrying the coal from Caro 1 OCP to CCL. When the alleged Dumper reached near Lugu Pahari on 1.3.1998 at about 3.30 a.m. about 50-60 armed persons stopped the Dumper forcibly and set it on fire by sprinkling fuel. One of the drivers of other dumper escaped and lodged F.R. which was registered as Gomia PS case No. 21/98. It is stated that petitioner informed the Insuranc...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjeet Singh 'Rahi' etc. etc. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-19-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR583]
ORDERThe Court 1. In all the cases, as common relief of regularisation of service has been sought for and the petitioners have relied upon on the decision of this Court in Md. Brian v. State of Bihar. CWJC No. 2840/ 99(R), disposed of on 27.3.2001. (reported in 2001 (2) JCR 112 (Jhr)), they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. All the petitioners claim to be working on daily wages since prior to 1st August,1985 in Saranda State Trading Division, Chaibasa/Klohan State Trading Division, Chaibasa, According to them, in terms with the Government resolution No. 5940 dated 18th June, 1993. they having engaged on daily wage prior to 1st August, 1985, having worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, are entitled for regularisation of their services/regular appointment giving weigh-tage over outsiders. 3. It is stated that one Md. Erfan. another daily wage employee engaged in the year 1982 moved before this Court in CWJC No. 2840/99(R) wherein the Court...
Tag this Judgment!Nishi Kant Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-19-2001
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR176
ORDER1. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been filed against the judgment and order dated 234th September. 2001, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, The writ petitioner-appellant filed a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the benefit of three years extension in service on the ground that he has been given a National Award and that there are provisions which entitled him to the grant of the aforesaid benefit. The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the writ application relying upon a memorandum issued on 23rd May. 1996, by the State Government, wherein the State Government decided that instead of any extension in service as a recognition for the National Award winners, the awardees would be granted the benefit of being paid the award money.2. The appellant has not filed along with the memo of appeal, the copy of theaforesaid memo dated 23rd May, 1996. When the attention of the learned counsel for the appellant wa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›