Jharkhand Court November 2002 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.
Mrs. Tapaswini Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-28-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR408(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. Arshad Hussain, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. G.N. Chandra, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos, 2 to 5 Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Junior Counsel to the Government Advocate is also present in Court representing respondent No. 1.2. At the very outset, Mr. Arshad Hussain, learned counsel for the Petitioner craves leave of this Court to be allowed to implead the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi as respondent No. 6. He is permitted to do so.3. The petitioner has been working since 29.6.1994 on daily wages after she had been given compassionate appointment on account of the death of her husband, Subodh Chandra Mishra who was working as an Assistant in the Bank and who died on 26.34.1993. The aforementioned fact relating to the working of the Petitioner in the status of a daily wager has not been denied by the respondents. On the contrary, at paragraph 7 there is an admission that it is true that the petitioner...
Sushanta Kumar Paul Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-28-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR658(Jhr)]
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J.1. The petitioner, who claims to be owner of truck No. WB-15-0229, has filed this application under Sections 397 and 401, Cr PC for release of truck seized in connection with Mandu/ Kujju P.S. Case No. 158 of 2002. In course of hearing of the instant application, an order was passed on 25.6.2002, pursuant to which petitioner, through supplementary affidavit, has amended the petition and has challenged the seizure also. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order dated 25.6.2002 is quoted herein below :'Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file supplementary affidavit for amending the prayer portion of the criminal revision application in order to challenge the seizure of the truck in question as well. The prayer is allowed.This criminal revision application is for release of the truck bearing registration No. WB 15-0229 which was seized in connection with Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No. 158 of 2002, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, H...
Bhairab Jamuda Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-28-2002
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR498(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction upon the respondent No. 4 for giving due promotion to the petitioner to the post of Head Master accruing prior to 31.12.1995 as the juniors were promoted ignoring the petitioner's claim. 2. The aforesaid demand of the petitioner arose out of the fact that according to the petitioner, he was at Sl. No. 14 of the Gradation List whereas one Jonko was at Sl. No. 16. The petitioner was not granted initially the B.Sc. trained scale. Subsequently, he had moved High Court because the claim of the petitioner to that scale was denied by the District Education Establishment Committee by Annexure-6. The claim of the petitioner is as follows :-- 'Unka Daba Hai Ki Unka Nam Boriyata Suchi Me 14 Number Par Hai. Thatha Shri Jonko Ka 16 Number Par Hal Shri Jonko Unse Niyukti, Yogotha I.Sc. Prothistha Betanman Prapti Me Kaniya Hai. Phirbi Unhe 12.3.1987 Se B.Sc. Prothistha Ka Bethanman Abang 18.3.1996 Ke Adesh ...
Roopna Manjhi Vs. C.C.L. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(51)BLJR120; [2003(1)JCR324(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The father of petitioner late Bhora Man) hi was in the services of M/s. C.C.L. in its Rajrappa Washery Project. He died in harness on 3rd June, 1999. The petitioner thereafter applied for compassionate appointment on 27th January, 2000 but it has been rejected on 13th June, 2002 and 3rd July, 2002 on the ground that the application was filed after 7 months and 21 days of the death of father of petitioner.2. Counsel for the respondents submitted that a circular dated 12th December, 1995 was issued wherein six months period was stipulated to accept the application for compassionate appointment. The petitioner having applied after 7 months and 21 days of death of his father, the application was rejected on the ground of delay.3. The submission aforesaid made on behalf of respondents cannot be accepted as it will be evident from the Circular No. 7151 dated 12th December, 1995 that it was never circulated amongst the employees, which reads as follows :CENTRAL C...
Ajay Kumar Kujur Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR353(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J. 1. Heard.2. The order dated 4.8.2001 passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga canceling the appointment of the Petitioner without assigning any reasons, is under challenge in this case. A consequential prayer has been made that after setting aside the aforementioned order, the petitioner be allowed to continueto work as Assistant Teacher under the Respondent No. 6 (i.e., Government Middle School, Naru Nawadih,. Kisko at Lohardaga).3. An advertisement for the appointment of Assistant Teachers for Government Primary School was published in the year 1991 through Bihar Public Service Commission. Pursuant thereto the petitioner applied for the District of Lohardaga and after having been successful in the preliminary examination, he had been granted a provisional admit card for appearing in the main-examination. He did appear in the final examination and after facing an interview was declared successful and his results were duly published in the 'Rojga...
Ram Prasad Mahto and ors., Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(51)BLJR133; [2003(1)JCR327(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. In all thecases, as common orders of cancellation of transfer orders are under challenge and involve common points of law, they were heard together for disposal by this common order.2. The petitioners were earlier transferred from one place to another by common order dated 27th December, 2001 issued by the Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Department, Jharkhand on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee. They having relieved, joined their transferred posts.3. The details of transfer of different petitioners from one place to another, date of relieving and joining to the other place, are as follows :Case No.Name of the PetitionersTransferred fromRelieved on Transferred to Joined onWPS 2377/021. Ram Pd. MahtoBEEOBhandra Lohardaga 2. Chandreshwar PanditBEEO Kara Ranchi15.1.02 BEEO Bhandra 18.1.02 3. Smt. Mala KumariDeputy DSE Ranchi15.1.02 Sub. lnsp. of School Ranchi 15.1. 02 4. Prabhu Narayan PathakBEEO Raydih Gumla28.9.02 BEEO Ratu 29.1...
ShamsuddIn Ansari and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR402b(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by Subordinate Judge, Palamau (hereinafter referred to as the Land Acquisition Judge) in LA No. 68 of 1985, whereby he has partly enhanced the compensation amount in a Reference case under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The land measuring 2.74 acres of village Bishunpur besides other lands was acquired by the State for construction of residential house and inspection bungalow of Damare Jalashai Yojana at village Bishunpur and award was prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer. The appellant made prayer for reference under Section 18 of the said Act and the matter was heard by Land Acquisition Judge. The case of the appellant is that the land of the same plot was acquired and compensation was paid in Compensation Case No. 1 of 1977-78 at the rate of Rs. 21,333/- to Rs. 26,667/-. The appellants adduced evidence before the Land Acquisition Judge in respect of...
Bro. Cyril K. Chettiath and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR515(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shamim Akhtar, learned SC-II.2. The grievance of the writ petitioner in the instant case is that notwithstanding the earlier judgment of the Patna High Court passed in CWJC No. 8004 of 1998 (Annexure 8) by which a specific direction had been made to decide the issue once and for all, and also notwithstanding the release of, funds by the Jharkhand Government as is evident from Annexure 9, which is a letter dated 30.3.2001, the petitioners have not yet been paid their interim relief since October 1999 and also arrears, teaching allowances, regional allowances and other benefits.3. It appears that by judgment of the Patna High Court passed on 4.1.2000, it was inter alia indicated that the State Government by a resolution had decided to give medical allowance, house rent allowance etc. to the employees of the recognised Govt. aided Minority Schools at par with the employees of taken over Government Schoo...
Ram Prakash Sharma Vs. B.S.R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR518(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mrs. Jaya Roy,learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.P.N.' Roy, learned senior counsel for theB.S.R.T.C.2. From a perusal of the enquiry report which was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner it appears that the enquiry officer did not find anything against the petitioner save and except suspicion. What is interesting is that the same suspicion was also recorded in relation to the then Depot Superintendent, Divisional Manager, Junior Foremen, Chowkidar alongwith the petitioner. Surprisingly for such a mere suspicion the petitioner has been dismissed, from service and upon enquiry, Mrs. Jaya Roy states that nothing whatsoever has been done in relation to the senior officers, i.e., Divisional Manager and other officers mentioned above. Prima facie, therefore, the punishment of dismissal inflicted upon the petitioner appears to be extremely harsh and that too when the charge relates to the missing of an alternator and one micro self starter. It i...
Sheo Lal Mahto Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation Through Its Chief Engine ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR516(Jhr)]
ORDERTapan Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. A.N. Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Ugghal, learned counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner, a petty peon working in the Bermo Mines of Damodar Valley Corporation was veritably shocked when he learnt through a 'Retirement Forecast' as contained at Annexure 2 that he would be superannuated on and from 31st December, 1997 contrary to his own record and contrary to his own date of birth which according to the petitioner was actually 21.7.1942 which logically would have taken him to 21.7.2002 before he actually would have superannuated. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned retirement forecast, the petitioner protested whereafter a medical board was constituted by the Management themselves and the petitioner was asked to appear. Subsequently the medical board examined the petitioner and found him to be actually less in age and therefore an office order was subsequently issued on 27.7.1998 (Annexure 4) by reason whereof the date of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »