Jharkhand Court April 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. Miliscent Panna Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR509(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 4.9.1997 (Annexure 7) by which the pension of the petitioner has been fixed on the basis of Rs. 4,100/- and further by reason of the same order, a, direction has been passed to realise the alleged excess amount paid to him. 3. According to the petitioner, she retired on 31.7.1996. No pension nor payment of any post retrial dues was given/ made as a result of which the petitioner was compelled to move before the then Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court vide CWJC No. 446 of 1997(R). The said writ application was disposed of on 23.7.1997 directing the respondent concerned to issue sanction order with respect to the amounts not yet paid to her. 4. Mr. M.M. Pan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the aforementioned order was passed, the respondents passed the impugned order whereafter the sanction order vide Annexure 8 was issued. 5. In the count...
Rajendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR351(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.2. The case of the petitioner is that inspite of the fact that Section 25-A of the Bihar Finance Act has been declared ultra vires by the Patna High Court, the respondents are continuing to deduct advance tax from the bills of petitioner under Section 25-A of the Act.3. Counsel for the respondents submitted that after the Section 25-A of the Act has been declared as ultra vires by Patna High Court, deducation on the basis of that provision was not permissible. But he submitted that the claim of the petitioner can be considered by the respondents and the amount, if any, deducted from the bill of the petitioner can be refunded only after thepetitioner files a return and the assessment under the Act is completed.4. We think that in the circumstances of the present case, the only direction that needs to be given is to direct the petitioner to make a proper application in terms of the Act before...
Ratnesh Kumar Verma Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR48(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rupesh Kumar Singh, learned JC to Mr. A.K. Mehta, SC-I for the State of Jharkhand.2. The petitioner in the instant case has prayed for fixation of his seniority with effect from 3.4.1988 and not with effect from 1993. He has also prayed for consequential benefits with effect from that day.3. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to be given seniority and promotion with effect from 3.4.1988 but due to mistake committed by the respondents, the same has not been given to him. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a draftsman on 28.10.1964 but subsequently, on 12.9.1975 his cadre changed and he was posted as a Forester in the same scale.4. On 23.1.1978, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. Government of Bihar issued a letter to all Forest Conservators, Regional Directors etc. (Annexure 6/A appended to reply to the Counter Affidavit filed by the petitioner). In the said letter it was int...
State of Bihar and ors. Vs. Dr. Kirti NaraIn Jha and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: [2004(1)JCR519(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard the parties. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the State of Bihar and others against the order dated 19.11.2001, passed by the learned Single Judge, in WP (S) No. 4283 of 2001, which was filed by the respondent No. 1. According to Stamp Report dated 11.6.2002, the limitation for filing the appeal expired on 19.12.2001, whereas it was filed on 3.9.2002. Hence I.A. No. 1573 of 2002 (at flag 'L') has been field by the appellants to condone the said delay, for the reason stated therein. We are satisfied that delay in filing the appeal has properly been explained. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the appeal.2. On 31.10.1994, the respondent No. 1 retired from the post of Regional Director, Department of Animal Husbandry, South Chotanagpur, Ranchi. By Notification dated 9.1.1996, the employees of the Animal Husbandry Department were allowed promotion to the revised scale of pay of Rs. 4100-5300/-, with retrospective effect from 1.2.1992. The respondent No. 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›