Jharkhand Court January 2002 Judgments
Kamakhya Prasad Singh Choudhary Vs. Ranchi University and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR644; [2002(94)FLR335]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 10.2.1994 issued by the order of the Vice-Chancellor, whereby the petitioner was reinstated in the service with the condition that he will not be paid arrears of salary during the period of suspension. The order/ notification dated 10.2.1994 read as under:-- 'Notification.--After careful consideration of the full facts and the Inquiry Report, the Vice-Chancellor has been pleased to order for reinstatement of Dr. K.P.S. Choudhary with immediate effect on the following conditions:(i) that no arrears of salary during the period of suspension shall be paid to him,(ii) That the period of suspension shall, however, be counted as service for increment and pension. Dr. K.P.S. Choudhary is posted to Katras College, Katrasgarh as Principal.By order of the Vice-Chancellor,S.I/- K.N. Gope.(Registrar).3. It appears that in 1991 while the petitioner was posted as Principal in the Katras College, Katrasgarh, he w...
Tag this Judgment!Bigla Kachhap @ Dilip Kachhap and ors. and Ranjit Kumar Roy Vs. State ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR528
ORDERThe Court 1. Two things emerge from the affidavit of the Secretary, Building Construction Department; one that the advertisement inviting tenders apparently has been published only in one Hindi local Newspaper. Mr. Poddar, however, submits that it has actually been published in other newspapers as well. The Secretary shall file a fresh affidavit by next date informing us about all such newspapers in which the aforesaid advertisement has been published and also enclose therewith copies of the clippings of such newspapers.2. The other thing which emerges from the affidavit of the Secretary is with respect to Clause 1.9 of the Advertisement notice. This clause reads as under:--'1.9. Tenderers are required to deposit only Earnest Money amounting to Rs. 32,06,300/- only in the shape of 6 years NSC (8th issue) duly pledged in favour of Executive Engineer, Building Division No. 1, Ranchi.'3. When asked by us as to what was the rational or logic behind the Government's insistence on the t...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. (Mrs.) Usha Sharma Vs. Ranchi University and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR486; [2002(93)FLR940]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. Heard the parties. This application has been preferred by the petitioner for a direction on the respondents to pay salary/wages for the period, she was forced to remain out of service, because of the order of termination, as also salary for the period from re-instatement i.e. 5th October, 1998 onwards, including the current salary.2. As the case can be disposed of on short points and the question of legality and propriety of the teachers of the college in question, including the petitioner, seems to be pending consideration before a Committee of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Agarwal, a retired Judge of Supreme Court, it is not necessary to make unnecessary observations in the present case.3. The petitioner, who was functioning as a Lecturer (History), Mandar College. Mandar ('College' - for short), a constituent college under the Ranchi University ('University - for short), her services was terminated by the Univesity's order No. B/2220-22 dated 22nd June. 1995...
Tag this Judgment!Nuna Ram Soren and ors., Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR941
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. In all these cases as one of the common prayer is to allow the petitioners to appear in the forthcoming Primary Teachers Training Examination, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners claim that they have completed Teachers Training Examination from respective colleges as recognised by the State but it is alleged that the Jharkhand Secondary Examination Board, Ranch hadnot allowed the students of their respective colleges to appear in forthcoming Primary Teachers Training Examination in respect to which notice No. 41 of 2002 was issued in terms of Court's order passed in another case.3. The respondents were allowed time in W.P.(C) No. 361 of 2002 to obtain instruction and file counter affidavit. An affidavit has been filed today enclosing copy of a decision taken by the State and communicated to the Administrator, Jharkhand Secondary School Examination Board. Ranchi vide letter No. 78 dated 17th January, 200...
Tag this Judgment!Dubraj Sao Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC48
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. In May, 1986, the appellant let out the suit premises, which was a godown measuring 50' 37', situated on plot No. 582 in village Ghure, within Palamu district to the respondents for the purpose of storing Bidi (Kendu) leaves on monthly rental of Rs. 320/-.2. On 1.4.1987, there was conflagration of fire in the stock of Bidi leaves stored in the suit premises, whereby the roof, floor, walls and construction of go-down were also damaged. According to the appellant, damage to the godown was occasioned on account of negligence on the part of the respondents. They had not made arrangements of proper measure against fire in the suit premises. The appellant was, therefore, liable to be compensated to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- for repairs of the godown and restore the suit premises.3. According to the appellant, the suit premises was in occupation of the respondents till May, 1987, but rent was paid only upto March, 1987. The plaintiff, therefore, also prayed for recovery...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Kumar Vs. Samim Anwar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: II(2002)ACC483; 2002(50)BLJR576
ORDERThe Court1. The respondent No. 6 has been served notice but no one appears on his behalf.2. Through the medium of this Review Application, the petitioner seeks the review of the order dated 25th July, 2000 passed by the L.P.A. Bench in L.P.A. No. 217 of 2000(R) which was filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the learned Single Judge delivered on 1-5-2000 in C.W.J.C. No. 2930 of 1999(R). From a reading of the order dated 25-7-2000 passed by the L.P.A. Bench, it becomes clear that this order is a non-speaking order. For locating any error apparent on the face of the record, therefore, we have to look to the order of the learned Single Judge passed on 1-5-2000.3. Undoubtedly what was under challenge before the learned Single Judge was an order dated 26-9-1998 granting route permits in favour of respondents No. 4 and 5 (in the writ application) ignoring the objections of the writ petitioner. In the final judgment/order dated 1-5-2000 passed by the learned Single Judge, a ref...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Vs. Ram Sawari Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: II(2002)ACC591; 2003ACJ1391
ORDERThe Court 1. Pursuant to our order dated 19th September, 2001, Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate-Commissioner, has submitted hisReport in the Court along with the statement of the witness, namely Kamaldeo Marandi.2. A reading of the statement of the witness, Kamaldeo Marandi, does suggest that with respect to the driving licence No. 3634/ 88. there is some dispute, viz. whether the licence was issued and held validly and legally in the name of Md. Izhar (the driver of the offending Bus) son of Usman Mian or in the name of Gopal Mahato (Some other person) son of Kamal Mahato. We are purposely and deliberately avoiding to make any definite comment or expressing any opinion on this aspect of the matter at this stage because of the order that we propose to pass.3. The stand of the appellant although has been that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence and because of the legal stipulation contained in Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the Insurance C...
Tag this Judgment!Balmiki Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR364a(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. Heard the parties. The petitioner who was in the services of the respondent-State, retired on 31st May, 2000, as Chargeman Grade-I from the office of the respondent-Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Hatia Project, Ranchi. After retirement, he having not been paid the total retiral benefits, had to move this Court in CWJC No. 1032 of 2001, which was disposed of on 19th March, 2001 with a direction to the respondents to pay the petitioner admitted retiral benefits. In pursuance of such direction, when the respondents-Executive Engineer, took up the matter for payment of retiral benefits, issued the impugned orders, a contained in Memo No. 427 dated 3rd May, 2001 (Annexure-5) and pay fixation statement (Annexure-5/A). It will be evident that the Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Hatia Project, Ranchi, by the impugned orders fixed the pay of the petitioner in the scale of Rs. 3050-4590/-, which is the grievance of the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagirath Sahu Vs. Bihar State Financial Corporation and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR943
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :--(a) For an appropriate writ/order/ direction for quashing the resolution dated 16-11-1994 (Annexure 7) taken by the executive committee of the Corporation, as contained in item 5223 relating to the petitioner-industry to the extent it imposes a condition of payment of Rs. 3.24 lakhs for settlement of the accounts of the petitioner's unit with the Corporation pursuant to the Board's item No. 11721 dated 30-6-93 on the ground that the condition of payment of Rs. 3.24 lakhs by the petitioner for settlement of his account under one Time Settlement Scheme of the Corporation pursuant to item No. 11721 dated 30-6-1993 is in violation of the said resolution and also the subsequent circulars issued by the Corporation for One Time Settlement Scheme and the same is absolutely illegal, arbitrary, whimsical and in violation of the settled principles of law. (b) For iurther appropriate writ/order/ direct...
Tag this Judgment!James Kandulna, Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR940
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. According to the counsel for the petitioners, petitioner James Kandulna of W.P. (S) No. 310 of 2002 is working on daily wage since 1983 under the D.F.O., Kolhan State Trading Division, Chaibasa; whereas petitioners John Kandeyang (W.P.S, 348/02) and Anand Nayak (W.P.S. 311/02), are working on daily wage since 1984 and 1982 respectively, under the D.F.O.. Saranda State Trading Division, Chaibasa, whereas petitioner Ram Pratap Bhanj (W.P.S. 319/02) is working on daily wage since 1981, under the D.F.O.. Saranda Division (Territorial). Chaibasa.2. It is stated that a number of persons similarly situated including Md. Irfan have been regularised in the services, as per guidelines issued by the State, vide Resolution No. 5940 dated 18th June. 1993.3. From the order passed by this Court in the case of Guru Chanran Mahto v. State of Jharkhand and others. W.P. (S) No. 5532 of 2001, disposed of on 23rd November. 2001 with other analogous cases, it appears that this C...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »