Jharkhand Court July 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.
State of Bihar and ors. Vs. Smt. Madhuri Devi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-21-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR304(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This appeal is filed by the State of Bihar and its officers challenging the Order dated 14.8.1996 in MJC No. 143 of 1996(R), passed in a proceeding initiated under the Contempt of Courts Act. In this appeal filed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, the main ground urged is that the learned Judge, while disposing of the contempt case, has gone beyond the directions issued in CWJC No. 2246 of 1994(R) and against the Rules governing the service of the respondent and to that extent the said order requires to be modified.2. When this case was called on for hearing, none appeared either on behalf of the appellants or on behalf of the respondent.3. Any contention that the appellants may have against the judgment in CWJC No. 2246 of 1994 cannot be agitated by the appellants in this appeal against the proceedings initiated under the Contempt of Courts Act. But what is essentially pointed out is that the learned Single Judge, while passing the order in proceedings under...
Prof. Gopalji Sahay Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-21-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR635(Jhr)]
ORDERI.A. No. 1091 of 2003 1. Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner by way of this interlocutory application has prayed that the State of Jharkhand and its officers be added as party respondents in this case. In view of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, this interlocutory application is allowed. The State of Jharkhand and its officers as described in paragraph 2 are added as party respondents in this case.CWJC No. 428 of 1995(R)Heard the parties in the main writ petition.2. The Supreme Court remanded this matter by order dated 6.9.1999 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4985 of 1999 for consideration of the question whether the following four items are payable to the petitioner or not :'(a) Difference of salary, DA, House rent allowance for the period 1.2.1985 to 30.9.1985, during which period the petitioner was entitled for payment on scale of University Professor i.e. the scale of Rs. 1,500.00 along with interest.' (b) 14 days earned leave encashment inasmuch as he was paid for 126 day...
Brij Bihari Pandey and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-21-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR812(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard counsel on both sides.2. The appellants are the petitioners in CWJC No. 1075 of 1986(R). At the point of time with which we are concerned, they were untrained graduate Science Teachers. They challenged before this Court the order by which then pay scales were fixed on the basis of the pay revision with particular scales of pay. Their complaint was that earlier on the basis of the report of the pay committee, they had been permitted to draw their salaries at higher scales of pay and thus the reduction in their pay scale was unjustified and that too without giving them an opportunity of being heard.3. When the writ petition came up for admission, it was noticed that two other writ petitions, CWJC 1010 of 1982(R) and 1011 of 1982(R) relating to the teachers of Dhanbad district were already pending CWJC No. 1010 of 1982(R) related to the B.Sc. untrained teachers while CWJC No. 1011 of 1982(R) related to I.A. untrained teachers. This Court directed that the writ petition, CWJC...
Mrs. Arti Gupta and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-21-2003
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR493(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The writ petition was preferred by one Subroto Kumar Gupta and 5 others against the order dated 19th October, 1993/27th October, 1993 passed in Encroachment Case No. 77/1993-94 and common appellate order dated 29th October, 1993 passed in Encroachment Appeal No. 9/1993.2. In the Encroachment Case the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Hazaribagh ('DCLR' for short) declared the land in question as public land and ordered to remove the petitioners. The appellate authority while observed that Encroachment has already been removed in the light of order passed by the lower Court, refused to restore possession of petitioners but given them liberty to seek redressal at proper forum, if they have any grievance.3. During the pendency of the writ petition the first petitioner, Subroto Kumar Gupta died and the heirs and legal representatives were substituted in his place.4. The case of the petitioners is that the land in question was homestead/Lakhe Raj land having leased to o...
Uma Shankar Pandey Vs. the C.B.i.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-21-2003
Reported in: 2004(52)BLJR16
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the Judgment dated 13-1-1997 passed by the Special Judge (C.B.I.) Dhanbad in R.C. case No. 10 of 1982 whereby the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 120B read with Sections 420/467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and also Section 5(i)(d) of the Prevention and Corruption Act and has sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months under Sections 120B read with Section 420/467 of the Indian Penal Code and further two years for Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 471 read with Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code. He has further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years under Section 5(ii) read with Section 5(i)(d) of the Prevention and Corruption Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case in brief is that one Kardhu Dusadh was under ground loader in Sendra Bansjora Colliery and he retired from his service on 31-5-1981. He submitted...
Ranchi Goshala Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-21-2003
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR115]; [2004(2)JCR399(Jhr)]; (2004)IIILLJ428Jhar
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This application has been preferred by M/s, Ranchi Goshala against the order No. 2736/93, dated 5th February, 1994 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi in a proceeding under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short E.P.F. Act).By the aforesaid order, the respondents held the petitioner an 'Establishment' and a sum of Rs. 66,331/- as dues payable by the petitioner on various accounts under the E.P.F. Act.2. One of the pleas taken by the petitioner is that the provisions of Section 7A of the E.P.F. Act is not applicable in the case of the petitioner, it being not an 'Establishment' nor is it a manufacturer.3. From the impugned order aforesaid, it will be evident that the petitioner disputed the applicability of the E.P.F. Act on the following grounds :'A. The Unit is a charitable institution established under the Bihar Goshala Act, 1950 and is always in short of funds.B. The establishment is ...
Amarnath Sen Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-21-2003
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR404(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20th November, 2002 passed by the S.D.O., Dumka in E.E. Case No. 57/2002-03 whereby the petitioner has been evicted from the land measuring 10 Kattas having Plot No. I37-A (Part) under Khata No. 31, Mauza-Phutabandh, District Dumka.2. According to petitioner one Dr. (Miss) Ashalata Bihswas was displaced during the Masanjore Project. The land in question was acquired for Basauri purpose vide L.A. Case No. 17 of 1954-55. It was settled with Dr. (Miss) Ashalata Biswas, who was the recorded Basauri raiyat in the month of January. 1980. The said Dr. (Miss) Ashalata Biswas made oral agreement with petitioner for an area of 4 Kattas of land including the khaparposh house and the Plinth area for consideration of Rs. 40,000/-. She received a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as earnest money and gave possession of 4 Kattas of land to the petitioner. The petitioner having right over the land, the proceeding under Section 42 of Santhal Parga...
Upendra Nath Singh Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-21-2003
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR398(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioner, a Senior Executive Engineer of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (for short BCCL) has challenged the order dated 19th January, 1994, whereby and whereunder, the General Manager (EE), BCCL, Dhanbad Informed the General Manager (HRD), BCCL,Dhanbad that the petitioner is drawingHouse Rent Allowance, though his wifeSmt. Tara Kumari Singh, Head Mistress ofNehru Balika Vidyalay at Bhuli has beenallotted Company's accommodation atBhuli with effect, from 26th June, 1991. Itwas further informed that the competentauthority has discontinued the grant ofHouse Rent Allowance and it was directedto recover the payment of House Rent Allowance already made to the, petitionerw.e.f. 26th June, 1991.2. The consequential letter of recovery,,contained in Ref:BCCL/HRD/DS/175. dated21st January, 1995 issued by the GeneralManager (HRD), Dhanbad for recovery ofamount w.e.f. 26th June, 1991 has alsobeen challenged.3. Admittedly, the wife of the petitioner Smt. Tara Kumari Si...
Baljore Passi Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tri ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-18-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR408(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner-concerned workman has prayed for quashing the Award dated 15.1.1998 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad in reference Case No. 1 of 1986, whereby he has held that the dismissal of the petitioner from service was justified.2. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of its power conferred under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes to the Tribunal for adjudication : 'Whether the action of the management of Loyabad Colliery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Sijua Area in dismissing from service Shri Baljore Passi, Driller w.e.f. 16.5.1984 is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen is entitled?'3. The case of the workman is that he was permanent driller of Loyabad Colliery. The management with an ulterior motive to victimize the concerned workman issued him a charge sheet dated 24.3.1984 on the ground of his unauthoriz...
Dr. Sudhansu Ranjan Vs. Coal India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-18-2003
Reported in: [2003(3)JCR410(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the Office Order dated 02.4.1997 issued by respondent No. 4, Director Personnel, Coal India Ltd., Calcutta whereby he was intimated that in the light of the judgment passed in CWJC No. 1665 of 1993(R), he will not be entitled to Dearness and interim relief.2. Petitioner joined the service of State Colliery in 1953 as an Assistant Surgeon Grade-I. At that time the service condition of the petitioner was governed by the Rules applicable to be Central Government Services. After the formation of the National Coal Development Corporation Ltd, by virtue of taking over the State Collieries, petitioner claims that he opted to continue in NCDC and he would be entitled to governed by the service condition as per circular dated 16.8.1965. Petitioner's case is that although he opted for being governed by the Government Service Rules, the Service Condition of the petitioner was protected including the retirement benefits. It is contended by the petitione...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »