Jharkhand Court March 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.
Subodh Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-26-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Jhar72; [2003(3)JCR690(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner against the decision dated 19th/20th February, 2001 of the State Transport Authority, Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, a condition has been imposed that a person cannot be granted more than one permit for the same route.2. The only question arises for determination is whether a person can be granted more than one permit for the same route or not.3. Before deciding the issue, it is necessary to notice the relevant facts, which are mentioned hereunder.The petitioner is engaged in business of transport and owes a fleet of bus which ply on various routes within the State of Jharkhand as well as on the Inter State route covering the neighbouring States.In the present case, the dispute relates to the route: Tata to Dhanbad Via Purulia, an Inter State route. As per law, concurrence by way of agreement has been taken by the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) from the State of West Bengal for grant of permi...
Ram Dulari Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-26-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR693(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in letter dated 8.12.2002 issued by respondent No. 2, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner whereby he has rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of the benefits under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme.2. Petitioner's husband was in the service of the respondent- Tin Plate Company of India Limited, Jamshedpur. In 1986 petitioner's husband became the member of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation and he had been regularly making payment of the required amount till February, 1999. The deceased had filled up the declaration form in 1968 and in the date of birth column he himself wrote the year of birth as 1947. According to the petitioner that year of the birth of the deceased husband of the petitioner was treated as the age of the deceased. Petitioner's husband retired from service on 16.2.1999 and died on 7.2.2000 leaving behind the petitioner as the widow and three...
Dharam Deo Narayan Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-26-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR371(Jhr)]:2009AIRSCW5571:2009(6)Scale718
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the Board of Governors of Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur (RIT, Jamshedpur for short-now known as 'National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur-NIT, Jamshedpur for short) communicated vide office order No. RIT (AA)-1642/99 dated 3rd June, 1999 whereby it decided to pay gratuity, leave encashment and other retiral benefits to its retiring employees on the basis of 58 years of age of superannuation instead of 60 years, which is the actual age of superannuation of an employee of RIT, Jamshedpur. Further prayer has been made by petitioner to direct the respondents to count the service' rendered by petitioner in one Deep Narayan Singh Regional Institute of Co-operative Management, Patna and Bokaro Steel Plant of Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL for short) for the purpose of determination of retiral benefits to which he is entitled from RIT, Jamshedpur. 2. One of the questions requires determination in ...
Bahadur Bedia Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-26-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1356; [2003(4)JCR108(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The vehicle of petitioner, a Trekker, bearing Registration No. BR 14 P 1477 was intercepted by respondents on 28th July, 1999 at about 7.30 p.m. by the Patrolling Party of Forest Checkpost, Ramgarh. Upon search, 157 pieces of Semal Planks were found loaded in the vehicle in question. Three persons aboard, namely, Suresh Bedia, son of the petitioner, driver and one Minaz Ansari were arrested for offence under Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. A Confiscation Case No. 7 of 1999 was registered on the basis of the offence report drawn by one Surendra Ram, Forest Guard.2. By an order dated 31st January, 2000 passed in Confiscation Case No. 7 of 1999, the Authorised Officer-cum-D.F.O., Hazaribagh confiscated the vehicle, in question, under Section 52 of the Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1989, The petitioner moved in Appeal Case No. 1 of 2001, but it was rejected vide order dated 15th December, 2000 by the appellate authority-cum-Deputy Commis...
Dhurub Deo Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-26-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR103(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The Petitioner, Dhurub Deo Singh prays for quashing the departmental proceeding initiated on the basis of a charge-sheet dated 26/28.11.1995 (Annexure-2). He also prays for quashing the said chargesheet as also the order of suspension passed on 28.11.1995 by Annexure-3 retrospectively putting the Petitioner under suspension w.e.f. 27.11.1995, i.e., from a date four days earlier to the date of his superannuation on the ground of a contemplated departmental proceeding. The Petitioner further prays that he be paid all his legal dues including Post Retiral Benefits to which he would have been entitled in normal course had he not been issued with the chargesheet and put under suspension in the manner stated above. The Petitioner also makes a prayer for payment of salary for the period 01.02.1993 to 04.01.1994, which, according to the petitioner, has been illegally withheld by the Respondents. The Petitioner has also made a prayer that he should not be fo...
Man Sing Tudu and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR63(Jhr)]
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioners along with others Were appointed against the Work Charge Establishment in a particular scale on temporary basis vide Annexure-2. One Golesta Tigga was also appointed as such but her services were terminated against which she had filed a writ and considering the fact that the petitioner of that writ was a schedule tribe her case was directed to be specially considered wide Order dated 1.8.2001 passed by the learned single judge of this Court, Annexure-5. Consequently, the petitioner of that writ was considered and she was reinstated vide Annexure-6. The petitioners of this writ were also terminated, they claim that their cases were similarly situated to that of Smt. Golesta Tigga. Considering this aspect of the matter a Bench of this Court by order dated 30.9.2002 directed the counsel for the respondents to obtain instruction as to whether any similarly situated person, such as Smt. Golesta Tigga has been reappointed vi...
Sushil Kumar Rao Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR25(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their consent this case is being disposed of at the admission stage.2. The petitioner has prayed for, quashing the order contained in Memo No. 409 dated 17.4.2001 (Annexure-8) by which a decision has been taken to recover excess salary paid to the petitioner; and for payment of post retrial dues.3. It is stated and submitted by the petitioner that his services were regularized on 17.9.1958. He was promoted on 2.8.1969. He was again promoted on 22.5.1981 and 24.11.1982. At the time of giving the said promotions, the respondent never said that the petitioner was getting a wrong higher pay scale. The respondent did not say so even at the time of deciding he dispute regarding the seniority of the petitioner on November 1991. Even when the petitioner was notionally promoted and pay of the petitioner was revised, the respondents did not raise any objection with regard to drawal of excess salary by the petitioner. It is lastly submitted t...
Prof. (Dr.) Lal Mani Prasad Vs. Ranchi University and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR64(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard both sides. 2. The short case of the petitioner is that he was a reader and had completed 16 years of continuous service then as per the qualification for time bound promotion to the post of university professor under 16th years scheme of the Statutes he was given provisional promotion by the university to the post of university professor vide Annexure-1 with effect from 10.11.1986. It was categorically stated in that Annexure that the promotion is provisional and subject to the concurrence of the University Service Commission. Later on a new resolution was passed which enhanced the qualification for the post of university professor. This notification was issued in the year 1993. Then acting on this notification the Commission calculated the date of eligibility of the petitioner with effect from the date on which the petitioner produced a Ph. D. scholar and granted him promotion with effect from 12.7.1988. Therefore, the date of his promotion to the post of university pro...
Abdul Kalam Vs. Bsrtc Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR120(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The petitioner, is Sweeper in Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Ranchi, He has absented without leave from 11.11.1998 to 30.7.2000. He was dismissed by Annexure-4 on the ground of his unauthorized absence from office for a long period. The cause of absence of the petitioner is that he was suffering from Tuberculosis, as a result of which he had not turned up before the respondents. The order impugned is not according to law. The dismissal order contained in Annexure-4 reads as follows :'SHRI ABDUL KALAM, SWEEPER, RANCHI PRATI. KO DINANK 24.10.1998 KE BINA KISI SUCHANA KE ANADHIKRIT EVAM ANIRYAMAE DHANG SE ANUPASTHIT RAHANE KE AROP ME ES KARYALAY GYAPANK 1810, DINANK 31.7.1999 KE DWARA NILAMBIT KIYA GAYA EVAM ES KARYALAYA GYAPANK 1809, DINANK 31.7.1999 EK DWARA AROP PATRA KI PRAPTI EK SATH NILAMBAN ADESH KO NIBANDHIT DAK SE SHUDHA PATE PAR BHEJATE HUE SPASTIKARAN KE MANG KEE GAYEE, SPASTIKARAN NAHI PRASTUT KARANE EVAM KISI PRAKAR KEE SUCHANA NAHI DENE KE KARAN DAINIK SAMAC...
Nirmal Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR368]; [2003(2)JCR505(Jhr)]; (2003)IILLJ659Jhar
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing notices and the entire proceeding being Minimum Wages Case No. 1/2002 and also for quashing the claim petition filed by the Labour Enforcement Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur against the petitioner under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (in short the Act). By filing an amendment petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the final order dated 30.6.2002 passed by respondent No. 5, the Sub-divisional Officer-cum-Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, Dalbhum, Jamshedpur for making payment of Rs. 2,36,957.80 as less payment of wages of Rs. 23,69,578/-as compensation being ten times of the aforesaid less payment. 2. Petitioner's case is that he is one of the trustees of Public Charitable Trust known as 'Indian Institute of Teaching' set up in 1999 by a trust deed having its office at Jamshedpur. The said trust has been set up for establishing and aiding education, social institutions, Dha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »