Jharkhand Court October 2002 Judgments
Laleshwar Prasad Rout Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-29-2002
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR369(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for direction on respondents to regularize his services against a vacant post of temporary clerk with a view to absorb extra clerks as per the guideline of the State.2. According to petitioner he is working as extra clerk since 1974 and he is a senior extra clerk in the District. There are posts, of temporary clerks lying vacant in the District of Deoghar wherein the services of the petitioner can be regularized as per the guideline issued by the State.3. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in their counter-affidavit made following statements:'That with regard to the statement made in paragraph 7 of the writ petition it is submitted that the two posts are lying vacant for temporary clerk and the first and third post are not reserved. It is very important to mention here that for promotion, seniority, fitness and competency has to be considered. Thus the petitioner Laleshwar Prasad Rout is senior most clerk of Deoghar Sub-...
Tag this Judgment!Gandur Bhagat and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-29-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR402(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhayaya, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the letter dated 4th July, 2002 Issued by the Secretary, Transport and Civil Aviation Department Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby and where-under their services have been sent back to their parent department. The Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Ranchi has been requested to depute some other competent persons in the Transport Department of the State.2. According to the respondents the performance of the petitioners were not satisfactory. They were asked to collect minimum 75%, of revenue during the year 2001-02. They have failed to realized 75% of the target, their services have been sent back to their department.3. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the services of the petitioners were placed under the Transport Department in July, 2001. They were supposed to achieve 75% of the target within a year, but the authorities calculated their achievement only up to March, 2002.4. Having re...
Tag this Judgment!Manjhi Hambram and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-28-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR501(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioners Manjhi Hembram and Mishil Soren, have preferred this writ petition against office order, contained in Memo No. 3099 dated 10th November, 2001 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Education, Dumka, whereby and whereunder, the respondents while revoked the order of suspension and closed the departmental proceeding, inflicted punishment that the petitioners shall not get any salary for the period of suspension.2. It appears that the petitioners were suspended, vide Memo No, 967 dated 12th April, 2001 in contemplation of departmental proceeding. They were subsequently served with charge sheet dated 16th April, 2001. Thereafter, the impugned order of punishment issued on 10th November, 2001.3. The case of the petitioners is that they refuted the allegations and submitted show cause reply, but without any departmental proceeding and without any intimation relating to any date of enquiry, the order of punishment was passed.4. The respondents in t...
Tag this Judgment!Hare Ram Pandey Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR301(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. The prayer, made in the Writ Application was for a direction upon the respondents to pay General Provident Fund amount contributed by the petitioner for the period 1.1.1971 to February, 1986 together with statutory interest as well as penal interest till the date of payment and for payment of interest accrued towards difference of arrears of pay on account of the pay revision for the period 1.1.1971 to 31.3.1973. According to the petitioner, this amount has been diverted/deposited in the General Provident Fund Account and the same was paid to the petitioner much after his retirement in 1998 without interest.2. From a perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is apparent that the petitioner has been paid Rs. 1,95,034 towards General Provident Fund for the period March 1986 to November 1997 on 29.8.1998. It also appears that the petitioner was paid Rs. 10,750/- as the GPF amount with interest for the period January 1971 to November 1976 and again Rs. 29...
Tag this Judgment!Central Coal Fields Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR304(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the certificate proceeding initiated by the respondents for recovery of cess and royalty for the minerals fire-clay extracted in course of mining activities.2. The petitioner's case is that the Central Coal Field Limited is a Government Company and carrying on mining activities in the coal mines area having been nationalized under the Cooking Coal Mines Nationalization Act, 1972 and Coal Mines Nationalization Act, 1973. The coal mines were acquired under the aforesaid Act and all rights and obligations are governed by the said Act. It is contended that since no lease in respect of mineral fire clay was ever granted by the respondents, they have no right or jurisdiction to demand royalty and cess in respect of mineral fire clay.3. The respondents case is that cess and royalty has been demanded on account of extraction and removal of fire-clay by the petitioner, in course of extraction of coal from different coal...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hiraman Mahto and o ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ732; [2003(1)JCR573(Jhr)]
ORDER1. In this application seeking condonation of delay for filing Misc. Appeal No. 192/2002, the main ground urged by the appellant is that the Claims Tribunal even though passed the judgment on 18.12.1999 in Title Suit No. 128 of 1996, but has not prepared the Award till date and therefore, on account of non-preparation of the Award, the appellant obviously could not obtain the copy of the Award and it is on account of non-supply of the copyof the Award that the appeal could not be filed in time.2. With respect to, and arising out of an accident involving a Motor Vehicle on 1st September, 1996, the claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 3 lacs on the ground that the accident had occurred because of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was insured with the appellant at the relevant time. The Tribunal passed a 'judgment' on 18th September, 1999 awarding co...
Tag this Judgment!Sadhu Charan Paul and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR389(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J. Heard. The facts involved in this case are similar to C.W.J.C. No. 2952 of 1995(R), C.W.J.C. No. 2692 of 1995(R), C.W.J.C. and No. 2820 of 1995(R).1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 8.9.1995 (Annexure 10) by which the promotion granted to the petitioner has been cancelled. They have also prayed for quashing of the order dated 11.8.1995 (Annexure-9) by which the promotion granted to the petitioners on the basis of I.A. Trained Scale has been cancelled and they have been directed to join at their original place of posting. The petitioners have also prayed for writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to give effect to the promotion order dated 22.7.1995 and confirm the writ petitioners on I.A. Trained Scale with effect from 1.12.1989 with all monetary benefits etc.2. According to the petitioners, they were appointed on Matric Trained Scale and they also passed I.A. on various dates, the details whereof have been given at paragraph 4 of the writ appli...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR392(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard. The facts Involved in this case are similar to C.W.J.C. No. 2952 of 1995 (R), C.W.J.C No. 3074 of 1995 (R), C.W.J.C. and No. 2820 of 1995 (R).2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 8.9.1995 (Annexure 3) by reason whereof it was inter alia intimate that those who had been promoted to the I.A. Trained Scale and B.A. Trained Scale as well as those persons who had been transferred will be reverted to their earlier posts. According to the petitioners, the order dated 8.9.1995 was initially challenged by some of the aggrieved teachers in C.W.J.C. No. 2637 of 1995 (R) and by order dated 14.9.1995 the operation of the said order dated 8.9.1995 so far as the petitioners of that case was concerned, was ordered to be stayed.3. According to the petitioners they were all appointed after following legal procedure through the Commission and were appointed on 21.9.1994 except the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 8 who were already working as teachers for pretty ...
Tag this Judgment!Placidivs Ekka Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR384(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant named above against the judgment dated 23.12.1989 passed in St. No. 491/87 (G.R. 243/87) by Shri Samsher Bahadur Singh, 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gumla whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty for the offence under Section 302, IPC and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of FIR (Ext. 2) of PW 1 Pulikar Kujur, the informant, lodged before the Chainpur P.S. on 6.5.1987 at 9.30 hours regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on that very day at 7.00 hours in the field at Gandhar Ghaura in village Tintangar Patratoli, P.S. Chainpur District Gumla and the signature of the informant thereon is Ext. 1.3. The prosecution case in brief is that PW 1 Pulikar Kujur, the informant, along with PW 6 Albert Kujur, PW 7, Fuljens Kujur, PW 4 Karlus Toppo, PW 2 Helarius Kerketta, PW 5 Silbester Kerketta was plough...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Valley Corporation and anr. Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Bo ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR371(Jhr)]
ORDERGurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Damodar Valley Corporation (hereinafter to be referred to as the Corporation) is a Body corporate and a Corporation under the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). The present writ petition has been filed by the said Corporation and its Chief Engineer (Commercial) against Jharkhand State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Electricity Board') for issuance of appropriate writ or direction and restrain the Electricity Board from wrongful and illegal supply of electrical energy to its consumers-respondents 5 and 6 at 30,000 volts or more without permission of the Corporation and beyond the scope of the provisions of the Act.2. The Corporation generates and supplies power through its different power stations in the State of Jharkhand to different consumers governed under the Act for 30,000 volts and above. For voltage below 30,000 i.e. ranging between 230 volts upto 11,000 volts power are being ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »