Jharkhand Court February 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.
Smt. Asha Rai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR410(Jhr)]
ORDER1. A very, very short point is involved in this appeal. Admittedly the appellant is the wife of the deceased Jiwan Rai, who was holding Provident Fund Account No. D/31/87 of Tetulmari Colliery. The appellant's claim was that she being a nominee of the deceased Jiwan Rai was entitled to receive the full Provident Fund amount standing credited in the aforesaid account, but the Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines, Provident Fund Region-II, Dhanbad (respondent No. 2 in this appeal) rejected the appellant's claim for receiving the entire Provident Fund amount and instead held and directed that the appellant along with parents of the deceased and the appellant's children would be paid the Provident Fund amount in equal shares.This was done vide Order dated 27.2.2002, passed by respondent No. 2. The appellant feeling aggrieved, challenged this Order by filing W.P. (C) No. 1974 of 2002, but the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application; hence this appeal under Clause 10 of the Let...
Shiv Shankar Sah Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-18-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR403(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader No. 4. 2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 7.6.2001 passed by Conservator of Forest, Singhbhum Afforestation and Social Forestry, Jamshedpur whereby he has disposed of the representation of the petitioner and held that he cannot be regularized in service. 3. There is no need to state the facts of the case as suffice it to refer the order dated 20.4.01 passed in CWJC No. 3170/ 99 (R) which was filed by the petitioner for regularization of his services. The order reads as under : 'The petitioner claims to be daily wage employee working as clerk-cum-typist in the office of Divisional ForestOffice (Afforestation Division), Chaibasa, since 28.12.1983. Prayer has been made to direct the respondents to consider this case for regularization of services in the light of scheme framed by the State. In the counter affidavit respondents have not disputed the fact relat...
Atul Chandra Roy Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR56(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. In this Writ Application the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.2.2001 issued under Memo No. 564 passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka by which promotions granted to the petitioner with effect from 1.5.1980 in the I.A. trained scale and with effect from 1.4.1982 in the B.A. trained scale was cancelled and it was ordered that amounts paid to the petitioner should be recovered. According to the petitioner, he has worked for so many years and therefore, for the period he worked, the respondents have no right to make any order for recovery.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that no opportunity of hearing nor any notice was given to the petitioner prior to issuance of the impugned order. On the earlier date, i.e. 14.2.2003, when this case was called out, there was no representation on behalf of the State respondents and therefore this Court had expressed displeasure and had ordered that if on the next date, no one was pre...
Satyendra NaraIn Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR211(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioner when challenged the departmental proceeding initiated, show cause notice issued as contained in Annexures 3 and 5, has also challenged the order dated 5th April, 1989 (Annexure 6) whereby he was dismissed as also the appellate order dated 24th July, 1989 whereby the appeal was rejected.2. The brief fact of the case shows that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide charge-sheet dated 25th July, 1988. Three sets of charges were levelled against him, the first charge related to illegal claim of travelling allowance; second charge related to giving wrong information relating to journey and the third charge related to theft of Rs. 2,000/- from the house of Superintendent of Police (Trainee) while he was posted as orderly.One may notice that one Sri S.R. Sabharwal was the S.R (Trainee) in whose house the petitioner was on duty and the allegation of theft was levelled against the petitioner by said Sri S.R. Shabharwal, S.P. I...
Tinplate Company of India Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Employees Provid ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR923]; [2003(2)JCR405(Jhr)]; (2003)IILLJ997Jhar
ORDER1. With reference to Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 it is agreed by both Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the applicability of the provisions of the aforesaid Act, in so far as the appellant is concerned, would arise only if the establishment in question has been employing 20 or more persons and that, in view of the admitted factual position in the present case the establishment in question had only 18 employees, the question which would fall for consideration is whether the Tinplate House is a part and parcel of the Tinplate Company and whether, in effect and substance, those 18 employees working in Tinplate House were the employees of the Tinplate Company. If the 18 persons are the employees of Tinplate Company then of course they are a part of the larger establishment and the provisions of the Act be...
Naval Kishore Vidarthi Etc. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR419(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the writ applications, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner of WPS No. 2638/ 2002 was taken in service by the respondents in the year, 1981 and was absorbed in the work charged establishment in 1987. Petitioner of WPS No. 2732/2002 was appointed in the work charged establishment in the year 1990. They seek a direction for regularization of their services and for payment of salary which is due since December, 2000.2. Petitioners' case is that they have been working since June, 1981 on muster roll basis in the Rural Engineering Organization, Ramgarh Sub-Division on the post of Night Guard. In 1987, as per the Government order No. 55 dated 11.11.1987, the petitioners along with other persons were absorbed in the work charged establishment. The service book of the petitioners was opened and provident fund is being deducted for the last 14 years. It is alleged tha...
Sai Electro Casting Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR757(Jhr)]
ORDER1. During the course of arguments, it transpires that the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Power and the State of Jharkhand though the Secretary, Department of Energy, are necessary and proper parties in this appeal and that, despite they not being the parties in the writ application should be added as party respondents in this appeal, so that the issues of far reaching importance arising in this appeal are decided by associating these two respondents properly and appropriately. It is accordingly ordered that the Union of India and the State of Jharkhand be added as party respondents No. 8 and 9 respectively. Mr. P.K. Prasad and Mr. B.S. Latt have appeared for these two respondents.2. The respondents may file counter-affidavits in three weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, shall be filed in one week thereafter.3. Let the matter appear on 14th March, 2003. In the meanwhile, it is directed that In so far as the supply of energy to the appellant by Jharkhand State El...
Maqbool Ansari and ors. Vs. Abdul HussaIn and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR611(Jhr)]
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. The Original plaintiff Sheikh Hussain Bux by registered mortgage deed dated 6.2.1974, Exhibit D, mortgaged 44 decimals of land of Plot No. 572 for Rs. 555/- in favour of Sheikh Rajmat. Thereafter by registered sale deed dated 15.3.1975, Exhibit B, he sold the said land for Rs. 1500/- to the original defendant, Sheikh Gaffar. Simultaneously the original defendant also executed a registered agreement, Exhibit 2 for re-conveyance thereof, on the same considerations amount, between 2032 to 2038 Sambat.2. The defendant claimed to have redeemed the said mortgage (Exhibit D) on 2.11.1975 and paid Rs. 555/- to Sheikh Rajmat and thereafter came in possession of the said land.3. Before expiry of the aforesaid stipulated period, the plaintiff sent registered notice to the defendant for executing necessary sale deed, after receiving the consideration amount of Rs. 1500/-. Title Suit No. 7 of 1980 was filed thereafter for directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in h...
Central Coal Field Ltd. Vs. K. Nandi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR414(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal under Section 39(1)(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.2.1995 passed by Sub-Judge, Vth, Ranchi, in Misc. Case No. 33/1992 whereby he has rejected the application filed under Section 30 of the said Act and made the award rule of the Court.2. It appears that an agreement was executed on 10th October, 1984 between the appellant, Central Coal Fields Ltd. and respondent, M/s. K. Nandi for construction of 10 numbers of RCC Overhead Tanks in different collieries of Hazaribagh Area. The respondent agreed to execute the work subject to the conditions set-forth in the agreement. The appellant's case is that the sites of construction of 10 Nos. of RCC Overhead Tanks having 90,000 Ltrs. capacity were handed over to the respondent and the construction work was to be completed within a period of 12 months. It is alleged that the respondent failed to take the work of constructi...
Shaheen Co-operative House Construction Society Ltd. and anr. Vs. Stat ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: [2003(2)JCR386(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. Debi Prasad, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Lalit Kr. Lal and Mr. R.S. Mazumdar learned Government Advocate, assisted by Shri A. Banerjee and Shri P.N, Mishra, Advocates.2. The writ petitioners pray for quashing of the entire proceedings in case No. 18 of 1986-87 under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the proceedings whereof are contained at Annexure 30. By reason of the aforementioned proceedings, the respondents passed an order for annulment of settlement in respect of 33.00 acres of land out of Revisional Survey Plot No. 758 appertaining to Khata No. 189 and situated at Village - Soparan, P.S. Ratu, District - Ranchi. By reason of the same order the Jamabandi which was opened in the name of Petitioner No. 1 (Society) was also ordered to be cancelled and direction was made for taking possession of the lands in question.3. Mr. Debi Prasad, learned Sr. Advocate has made a very short argument and he has submitted that proceedings under Se...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »