Jharkhand Court December 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.
Bindeshwari Singh Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR379(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This case has been preferred by petitioner against the departmental proceeding initiated vide charge-sheet No. 1256 dated 13th November, 2001 with further prayer to restrain the respondents permanently from proceeding against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding till the disposal of criminal appeal preferred by petitioner pending before this Court.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was trapped by team constituted by C.B.I. on 28th June, 1994 on the complaint of Dular Chand Bhuiya for taking illegal gratification of Rs. 100/-. Thereafter, he has been convicted by Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R. C. Case No. 19(A)/94(D) under Sections 477-A and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 7/13(2) and 13(1)(2) of the Prevention ofCorruption Act. He has already preferred criminal appeal No. 356 of 2001 before this Court which has been admitted and the petitioner has been released on bail. In the meantime, the Management initiated the departmental proceeding aga...
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR331(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Under Sections 10(1)(d) and 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, at the instance of the Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union (for short 'the Union'), the following dispute was referred to the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal No, 1 at Dhanbad for adjudication :'Whether the action of the management of Dugda Coal Washery of M/s. BCCL, P.O. Dugda, district Dhanbad in not regularizing S/Shri Muslim Ansari and 52 others (as per list attached) is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workmen are entitled ?' 2. The Union claimed that 53 workers as per list attached to the order of reference were working in the maintenance job of Dugda Coal Washery since 1987. The said work was of a permanent nature and their attendance in each calendar year was more than 240 days. Hence, their services were required to be regularized.3. On the other hand, the management of the Coal Washery claimed that aforesaid 53 persons were not workmen of the Washery and there was no relat...
Lal Pratap Nath Shahdeo Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR287(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. This writ application has been filed for quashing Annexure-1 whereby and whereunder Parcha has been directed to be issued in favour of the respondent No. 5 by the Circle Officer in Palamau Case No. 3/90-91 and for quashing Annexure-3 whereby and whereunder the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order aforesaid in Misc. Case No. 50/91-92.2. The points for determination in this writ application are (i) whether an order granting a document creating permanent homestead tenancy without any finding whether the person concerned is a privileged person or privileged tenant is illegal and without jurisdiction and (ii) whether a Circle Officer, without making inspection, can pass an order under Rule 5 of the Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Rules, 1948.3. The aforesaid questions arose out of the short facts that the disputed land over which tenancy was sought by the respondent No. 5 and subsequently granted comprises of 1...
Venudhar Mahanti Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR320(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order contained in Memo No. 52 dated 11th February, 2002 whereby and whereunder it has been ordered to retire the petitioner w.e.f. 31st January, 2002 having completed 40 years of service.2. Admittedly, no rule/guide line has been prescribed by the State for superannuation of a Government employee on completion of 40 years of service. The age of superannuation has been prescribed under Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code in terms of which a person stands retired on attaining 58 years of age. There is nothing on the record to suggest that any rule or guide line was in vogue prescribing minimum age of 18 years when the petitioner was appointed on 1st February, 1962.3. Similar case fell for consideration before the Patna High Court in Mokhtar Ahmad v. B.S.R.T.C., reported in 1995 (I) PLJR 183. The Patna High Court taking into consideration the provisions of Rules 54 and 73 of the Bihar Service Code, held that an employee stands ...
Haradhan Dutta and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(51)BLJR151; [2003(1)JCR344(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This second appeal by the plaintiffs-appellants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9.5.1988 passed by 7th Additional District Judge, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 88/3/44 of 1974/76/87 whereby he has reversed the judgment and decree dated 24.7.1974 passed by the Munsif, 2nd Court, Dhanbad, in Title Suit No. 104/70 and dismissed the suit.2. The plaintiffs-appellants filed the aforementioned suit for declaration of title and further for a declaration that the property of Schedule-A of the plaint has not vested in the State of Bihar. Schedule-A property comprised of two plots, namely, plot Nos. 667 and 668 of Khata No. 207 situated in village- Pindrahat, P.S. Nirsha, District-Dhanbad. These plots are the tank and embankment. Plaintiffs' case is that these plots were the khas property of the Ex-landlord who settled it with the plaintiffs in raiyati right in the year 1951 B.S. i.e. 1944 on annual rent of Rs. 3 only. The plaintiffs alleged to have taken settlem...
Bharat Prasad Choudhary Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR1131]; [2003(1)JCR360(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order contained in Memo No. 2822 dated 9th November, 2001 whereby and whereunder the Financial Controller, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna (B.S.E.B for short) while sanctioned D.C.R. gratuity in favour of petitioner, it has been ordered to recover a sum of Rs. 82,974.40 paise from his gratuity on account of excess pay drawn by the petitioner.2. According to petitioner the respondents cannot recover any amount from his gratuity, the benefits of promotion and fixation of pay having given in 1977 and petitioner retired about two years back on 31st January, 2000.Further, according to petitioner, his initial pay as on 27th May, 1978 was fixed at Rs. 696/- which was revised from time to time and was fixed at Rs. 3,275/- at the time of his superannuation i.e. 31st January, 2000. The office of the Electrical Executive Engineer, Nirsa, Dhanbad vide its order contained in memo No. 12 dated 7th January, 1983 issued order with regard t...
Parulbala Dasi Vs. Gopal Sharma
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: [2002(2)JCR325(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party in spite of service of notice.2. It appears that the plaintiff petitioner filed a suit for eviction being title suit No. 33/87 in the Court of Munsif, Chaibasa for a decree of eviction of the defendant from the suit property. The suit was dismissed by the Additional Munsif. Against that appeal was preferred by the plaintiff petitioner which was eventually allowed and the suit was decreed in 1993. The petitioner then levied eviction case No. 4/84. In the said execution proceeding the opposite party filed an objection which was registered as miscellaneous case No. 2/97. In the said miscellaneous case, the opposite party filed an application for inspection of the suit property by appointing a survey commissioner on the ground inter alia that there is Kali temple in the suit premises and hence decree cannot be executed. The executing Court namely Munsif Chaibasa by order...
Parsuram Saha Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR199(Jhr)]
ORDERHari Shankar Prasad, J.1. Heard learned, counsel for the parties.2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 16.4.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pakur in Cr. Revision No. 73 of 2000/25/2001.3. The case of the parties in brief is that the first party-petitioner filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pakur, being Cr. Misc. No. 178/2000 requesting therein to initiate a proceeding under Section 144, Cr PC with regard to lands in dispute and a proceeding under Section 144, Cr PC was initiated and later on the proceeding was converted into a proceeding under Section 145, Cr PC. The second party-opposite party went in revision against the order of conversion from a proceeding under Sections 144 to 145, Cr PC and learned Sessions Judge, in revision, allowed the revision and set aside the order of conversion of the proceeding from Sections 144 to 145, Cr PC and against that order the petitioner-f...
Rajendra Prasad Shah and anr. Vs. the New India Assurance Company Ltd. ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC40; [2003(96)FLR1022]; [2003(1)JCR295(Jhr)]; (2003)IILLJ446Jhar
ORDER1. Limited notice was issued on 2.9.2002 restricted to that part of the Award which related to the imposition of penalty upon the appellants (the compensation amount and the interest was payable by the Insurance Company).2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has drawn our attention to the Proviso to Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and has submitted that in terms of the proviso it was incumbent upon the Commissioner to have afforded a reasonable opportunity to the appellants of showing cause as to why the penalty be not imposed upon them. Sub-section (3) of Section 4-A reads thus : .'4-A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default.--(3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall-- (a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelv...
Budhan Mahto Vs. Central Coal Fields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR321(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The writ petition has been preferred by petitioner for commanding the respondents to convey the petitioner his proper C.M.P.F. amount in his credit.2. In the counter affidavit, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, C.M.P.F., R-II while stated that the provident fund subscription accumulated for the year ending March, 1976 i.e. Aprl, 1975 to March, 1976 was deposited vide 'V.V' Sl. No. 728 and 103 by Kedla North Colliery in March, 1976 and March, 1977 respectively. No parentage of Budhan Mahto is shown therein. The concerned management of Kedla North Colliery did not submit requisite form 'H.H' for allotment of C.M.P.F. account no. as required in para 39 of the scheme. The provident fund contribution accumulated for the year ending March, 1977 was kept in Suspense Account as it was deposited without any parentage or account no.3. It is also stated that one Budhan Mahto s/o Fagu Mahto having C.M.P.F. account No. R/44-2259 was also on roll of the managemen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »