Jharkhand Court February 2003 Judgments
Employers in Relation to the Management of Kessurgarh Colliery of B.C. ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR159(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Mehta learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.2. The petitioner (M/s. B.C.C.L.) is aggrieved by the award dated 10.7.1995 passed in Reference Case No. 99 of 1986 as contained at Annexure-3. The short facts which are necessary to be taken note of are that on 4.4.1981 at about 8.15 a.m. the concerned workmen assaulted the Safety Officer by fists and blows which caused bleeding upon him. The management considered this to be an act of insubordination on a superior officer which amounted to a serious misconduct which was also violative of the standing orders applicable to the Establishment. The workmen were issued with charge sheet on the same day, t.e. 4.4.1981, whereafter a domestic inquiry was conducted and an inquiry report was submitted on 20.7.1981 holding the concerned workmen to be guilty of the misconduct levelled against them. Sub-sequently an order of dismissal was passed on 20.8.1981. Bein...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sagar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR156(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.N. Deo, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Manjul Prasad, who states that he is appearing in this case for the State-respondents after having obtained consent of Mr. Pradip Modi, learned Government Pleader No. 1; and Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.2. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to explain and show cause as to why action was taken by the respondent No. 2 under the provisions of Bihar Pivileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the said Act) and- as to why parchas were granted to the respondent No. 3 and 4 from out of the raiyati land of the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed that the said purchas be quashed and/or cancelled inasmuch as according to the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 (Circle Officer) had no jurisdiction to grant purchas in respect of tile petitioner's raiyati land in favour of the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Lily Dorothy Topno Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR416(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In the instant writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ directing respondent No. 3 District Education Officer, Gumla to pay petitioner's salary alleged to have illegally and arbitrarily with-held from February, 1998.2. Petitioner's case inter alia is that petitioner is working as teacher in Saheed Harman Rascart High School, Kutungia in the District of Gumla which is a recognized aided religious Minority High School and payment of salary of teacher of the school is being funded and financed by the State Government, Department of Education through the District Education Officer, Gumla. It is contended that she was appointed in the year 1981 by the Selection Committee of the School Management and since then she has been working and discharging her duty. The proposal for formal approval of the petitioner's appointment along with supporting papers were sent to respondent No. 3 and the appointment of the petitioner was approved in 198...
Tag this Judgment!Amrit Mahato Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR510(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. Heard both sides. 2. The dispute with regard to the date of birth/age of the petitioner is the subject matter of this writ petition. Earlier the petitioner had come to the Court and the Court directed him to file representation to be disposed of by the competent authority by a reasoned order. Consequent to the Court's order, the competent authority, the General Manger, I/C (P and IR), has passed the impugned order, rejecting the claim of the petitioner that his date of birth is 3.11.1947. On consideration of the Service Excerpts, Form B Register, the authorities came to a finding that the date of birth of the petitioner was not 3.11.1947, rather it was 3.11.1939. 3. The petitioner bases his claim mainly on the report of the Jafri Committee and shows to the Court different note-sheets, under which the age was sought to be entered into the Computer, but for some reason, it could not be entered into the Computer and ultimately the petitioner was superannuate...
Tag this Judgment!Ramnath Sao Alias Ramnath Sahu and ors. Vs. Goberdhan Sao and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: 2003(51)BLJR749
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This appeal by the defendant-appellants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31-5-1989 passed by Subject III, Hazaribagh in Partition Suit No. 77/80 of 1966/88 whereby the plaintiffs' suit has been decreed in part.2. In the aforesaid suit the plaintiffs-respondents sought a decree for partition and claimed sixty two and half paise share in the properties of village Lapunga detailed in Schedule B and item Nos. 1 to 8 of Schedule C properties and share to the extent of 13-4/5 paise item No. 9 of Schedule C properties.3. Plaintiff's case, inter alia, is that one Fuchan Sao was the common ancestor of the parties Khata No. 19 of village Labaga P.S. Ramgarh was recorded in the name of Fuchan Sao. He had one son, Mithu Sao. Mithu Sao, since dead, had two wives. From the first wife named Temni Devi he had two sons, Ramnath Sao and Kashinath Sao and a daughter Bachua Devi. From his second wife, Bilaso Devi, he had three sons, Goberdhan Sao, Baldeo Sao and Jagdish ...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Khalil Ansari Vs. Bokaro Steel Plant and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR503(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. This is one more case in which the petitioner has challenged the recording of the date of birth as entered into Annexure-2. According to the petitioner, his actual date of birth is 4.12.1950, which is proved from the Medical Book issued by the respondents and therefore, the petitioner prays for issuance of mandamus upon the respondents to make necessary correction in the date of birth as recorded in the personal file of the petitioner and not to make interpolation in it (emphasis stressed).2. The contention of the petitioner has been countered by the respondents. In a supplementary affidavit filed by the respondents on the direction of the Court, the Original Form giving the detailed bio data of the petitioner interviewed for the post of Khalasi on 29.6.1972 has been produced, regarding which some doubt had been expressed by the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner.3. Another document is Annexure-A. These are the personal data of the petitioner. The age...
Tag this Judgment!Anirudh Chatterjee and anr., Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR176(Jhr)]
ORDER1. It is a very unfortunate case where the writ petitioners being brilliant students possessing outstanding merit and duly having been selected for admission in Bachelor of Engineering Courses in the Regional Engineering Colleges for the academic Session 2002-2003 were denied the fruit of their hard labour and merit and in the process also denied admission into the RECs aforesaid courses for the aforesaid academic Session (2002-2003) only on account of the happening of some circumstances which were not at all of their creation and which were totally beyond their control. The screening test for admission was conducted on 7th July, 2003 and based on the result of the screening test (to determine merit), written, entrance examination was held on 4th August, 2002 and the result thereof declared on 15th September, 2002 in which the petitioners found their places duly and legitimately in the Select List. On 29th October, 2002 the petitioners were invited for participating in the Counsel...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Kumar Agarwal and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT(Cri)4; II(2003)BC517; 2003CriLJ3088; [2003(2)JCR178(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. Prabhas Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. R.S. Majumdar, learned Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2.2. The instant application invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for quashing the order dated 6.6.2002 passed in Criminal Revision No. 24 of 2002 by the learned Sessions Judge, Koderma by reason whereof he dismissed the Revision Application itself.3. The Revision Application in turn was filed against the order dated 6.3.2002 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in Case No. 136 of 2000 (T.R. No. 551 of 2002) by which he rejected the petition dated 18.6.2001 filed by these petitioners wherein they had prayed for acquitting them in terms of the provisions contained under Section 256(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 and for discharging them under Section 249 of the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Ramlal Ramani Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR523(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in the letter being Memo No. 543 dated 30.5.2002 issued by respondent No. 3, Executive Engineer, Road Construction Division, Deoghar, whereby the service of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground that his service is no more required by the department. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Road Roller Driver in 1986 and continuously worked under the respondent. In 2001 the petitioner moved this Court by filing CWJC No. 1866 of 2001 for regularization of his services and for payment of salary. The stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit was that since the petitioner was employed on daily wages and not against the sanctioned vacant post, he is not entitled for regularisation. The writ petition was disposed on 5.3.2002 with a direction to the Chief Engineer /Executive Engineer PWD, Deoghar to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization of hi...
Tag this Judgment!Sachindra Kumar Ojha and ors. Vs. Chairmen, Steel Authority of India L ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR574(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. This writ has been filed for quashing the part of the circular Annexure-6 and Annexure-9 issued by the respondent No. 5 which without giving an opportunity to the qualified and eligible persons (petitioners) has been issued in most arbitrary and fanciful manner and also for a mandamus commanding upon the respondents to invite the petitioners for appointment on the post of E-O grade and Jr. Manager (F&A;).2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioners (six in number) joined the Bokaro Steel Plant B.S. City as Junior Trainee, Operator, Senior Operator, Junior Trainee in Water Supply Department, JR T.O.T. and Junior Trainee in the years 1983, 1973, 1990, 1982, 1990 and 1982 respectively. According to them as per the circular for promotion to executive cadre from non-executive cadre in finance discipline they are eligible for being considered. According to Rules 6.2.5 (Annexure-3) the employee having a qualification of CA/ICWA are not to be considere...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »