Jharkhand Court January 2003 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.
Sahdeo Mahto Vs. Hadi Ram Mahto
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-02-2003
Reported in: 2003(51)BLJR474; [2003(1)JCR500(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This matter has been placed under the heading 'for order' for deciding the maintainability of this Second Appeal.2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.6.2002 passed by Additional District Judge VIII, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 39/01. The aforementioned appeal was filed before the District Judge, Dhanbad against the order passed by revenue officer in a suit filed under Section 87 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. Section 87 lays down the provision regarding institution of suit before the revenue officer. Section 87 reads as under :'Institution of suits before Revenue Officers.--(1) In proceedings under this Chapter a suit may be instituted before a Revenue Officer, at any time within three months from the date of the certificate of the final publication of the record-of-right under Sub-section (2) of Section 83 for the decision of any dispute regarding any entry which a Revenue Officer has made in, or any omission which h...
Vidyadhar Pandey Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-02-2003
Reported in: [2003(1)JCR581(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioner was in the services of the Bihar State Electricity Board-B.S.E.B. for short (now Jharkhand State Electricity Board-J.S.E.B. for short) and superannuated on 31st August, 2001 from the Super Selection Grade Post of Accounts Assistant. After retirement total retiral benefits, having not paid and letter No. 1573 dated 22nd March, 2002 having been issued by the Secretary J.S.E.B., Ranchi, the petitioner has challenged the letter aforesaid and has prayed for payment of retiral benefits in the revised scale on the basis of last pay drawn by him.2. According to petitioner he having been appointed to the post of Accounts Assistant w.e.f. 22nd January, 1968 such date cannot be shifted forward to 12th December, 1972 for the purpose of calculation of retiral benefits after 34 years of his appointment as Accounts Assistant.3. On the other hand, according to respondents, the petitioner having been granted regular promotion to the post of Accounts Assistant...
Md. Ashfaque Ahmad Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-02-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR12(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhya, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the Notification No. 19/2000 bearing memo No. SKU/G/R/94/2000 dated 10th June, 2000 whereby the Vice-Chancellor, Siddhu Kanhu University, Dumka ('University' for short) terminated his service and three others on the ground that they did not possess the requisite qualification at the time of their appointment.2. The case of petitioner is that he was appointed as lecturer, Political Science in Millat College, Parsa, District Godda against first sanctioned post by governing body's letter dated 5th July, 1997. The Bihar Universities Service Commission, Patna ('Commission' for short) given temporary concurrence vide letter dated 6th February, 1978 wherelnafter the then University namely, Bhagalpur University approved his service vide letter dated 30th September, 1978. A Committee constituted by the Hon'ble Chancellor recommended his name for regular appointment vide its decision dated 6th July, 1982 which was challenged by one Md. Ja...
Satya Narayan Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-02-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR312(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, learned J.C. to G.P.I.2. Reference in this case may be made to the order dated 8.1.2001 by reason whereof six weeks' time was granted to the State to file Counter Affidavit and they were directed to specifically state as to whether any proceeding under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, was initiated and whether the Petitioner was served with a copy of the Inquiry Report or not. In the same order it was specifically Indicated that the case may be disposed off at the admission stage. A copy of the order was also directed to be handed over to the G.P.I. and on the next day such a copy was in fact handed over to him.3. Today (about two years from the date of passing of the aforementioned order) when this case was called out, Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, learned J.C. to G.P.I, stated that the Office of the G.P.I. had made a number of correspondence with ...
Sibu Ganjhu Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-02-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR366(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant named above against the judgment dated 27.4.1996 passed in S.T. No. 5 of 1994 by Shri Shree Prakash Rai, 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi whereby and whereunder he along with two co-accused person, namely, Raj Kumar Pandit and Namuddin Ansari have been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 364/34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years for the offence under Section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It is relevant to mention here that the accused Raj Kumar Pandit and Naimuddin Ansari had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1996 against the impugned judgment whereby they were convicted and the said appeal was allowed by the Bench of this Court as per judgment dated 20.3.2...
Ram Narayan Rajak and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-02-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR375(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mrs. J. Mazumdar learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Single learned JC to AG Government of Jharkhand.2. Reference in this case may be made to the order dated 15.2.2001 by reason whereof six weeks time was granted to the State to file Counter Affidavit.3. Today when this case was called out, Mr. S.K. Singh, learned JC to AG made a prayer for a further adjournment so as to enable the State to file an Affidavit. Considering the fact that six weeks time was already been granted more than one year ago i.e. on 15.02.2001, this Court is not inclined to grant any further time to the State and this Writ Petition is being disposed off on the basis of the pleadings made in the Writ Petition.4. The Petitioners have made a prayer in this Writ Application for a direction upon the Respondents to pay the up graded pay of Rs. 2000-3800 with effect from March, 1989 on the post of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer and other equivalent posts on the principle of equ...
The Employers in Relation to the Management of Dhanbad Nursing Home Vs ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-02-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR1147]; [2003(2)JCR313(Jhr)]
ORDERTapan Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner.2. Inspite of valid service of notice upon the Respondent No. 2 as is evident from the Office Note dated 6.11.2001, no body has appeared on their behalf. Consequently the Writ Application is disposed of ex parte and in their absence.3. The Writ Petitioner has challenged a portion of the award dated 28.12.1999 passed by the Presiding Officer Labour Court, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 6 of 1993, whereby and whereunder after having held that the termination of services of Umesh Singh was valid, legal and justified, he proceeded to grant compensation to him to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) which was required to be paid by the petitioner within three months from the date of pronouncement of the award.4. I have perused the award and I find that the Presiding Officer has not given any reason as to why he has come to conclusion that compensation was required to be paid. On the contr...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›