Jharkhand Court October 2004 Judgments
Yogesh Chandra Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand Through the Secretary, Dep ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR50(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. The petitioner in this case retired on 31.8.2002. He prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to fix and pay his pension together with the arrears and interest. He also prays for a direction upon the respondents directing them to release Gratuity with interest; leave encashment amount for 240 days with interest and due salary from 06.07.2000 (date of suspension) till 31.08.2002 (date of superannuation).2. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the petitioner is getting 90% of pension (excluding the period 6.7.2000 to 31.8.2002), which makes a difference of about Rs. 400/-. He further states that the petitioner has got provident fund and the subsistence allowance, but the period between 6.7.2000 to 31.8.2002 has not been regularized thereby preventing the accounting of this period towards pension. He is also not getting salary for the period 6.7.2000 to 31.8.2002.3. The petitioner was appointed as Block An...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Jyoti Kishore Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR769(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 10.6.2002 issued by the respondent No. 4 removing the petitioner from service without holding any departmental enquiry. According to the petitioned the respondent No. 4 The Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum (East), Jamshedpur-cum-Chairman, District Rural Development Agency, Singhbhum (East), Jamshedpur] is not competent to pass an order of dismissal/removal from service and if is only the Board of Management which can do so.3. The petitioner has stated that he got himself registered in the Employment Exchange, in the District of Singhbhum in the year, 1981, The respondent authorities called for names for employment on daily wages and the names of nine employees from different areas including that, of the petitioner were sponsored: Thereafter, the respondents considered these names including that, of the petitioner and, after following the due process of law, appointed him vide memo dated 30.3.1983 (Anne...
Tag this Judgment!Neemi Chand Agarwal Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR778(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioners in the instant cases pray for quashing the circular No. Misc./ 2424/98/EB-3/14/9/99 issued by the Financial Controller (Rev.) Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna (respondent No. 6) directing all officers of various Electrical Circles to raise fuel surcharge on the basis of monthly minimum consumption for consumers falling under the Low Tension Industrial Service/Commercial Service Category, thereby directing to levy fuel surcharge on unconsumed units also in respect of consumers of both the categories. By reason of the said circular, a further direction has been made to raise Supplementary Bills for the previous periods following the aforementioned method of levying fuel surcharge on unconsumed units. This, according to the petitioners, is contrary to the principles of tariff and also contrary to the judgment of this Court wherein it has been held that the consumers are liable to pay minimum guarantee charge on annual basis and not ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandranidhi Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR19(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioners pray for quashing the letters dated 11.4.2001 (Annexure-13 Series) passed by the respondent No. 2 refusing to supply coke. According to the petitioners, these orders are contemptuous in nature being in derogation to the Orders/direction passed by the High Court vide Orders dated 23.1.2001 (Annexure-5); 28.2.2001 (Annexure-7) and 22.3.2001 (Annexure-10) whereby, the respondents had been directed to release coal. The petitioners also pray for quashing the fresh sale/tender notice dated 7.4.2001 as contained in Annexure-15 issued for the sale of 3,000 M.T. of B.P. (O) Hard Coke.3. According to the petitioners, pursuant to a sale notice dated 23.10.2000 (Annexure-1) for the sale of 3,000 M.T. of B.P. (O) Hard Coke, the petitioners had applied on 4.11.2000 submitting application in the prescribed form together with all documents for the purchase of 500, 500 and 990 M.T. respectively (Total of 1,990 M.T.) and had paid the price at the rate...
Tag this Judgment!Sonaram Hansda Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR35(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The Petitioner in the instant case prays interalia for an appropriate order restraining the Respondents from setling the Tank situated on Khata No. 169 Plot Nos. 67-68 under Mauza Hamsada commonly known as 'Hamsada Bandh'. He further makes a prayer that this order should be delisted from the list of Tanks to be settled for financial year 2002-03 as he has apprehensions that the same would be settled and-included in the said list vide serial No. 20 thereof. The Petitioner has further made a prayer that the concerned Circle Officer be directed to fix rent of the Tank so that he may be able to pay rent to the State.3. According to the Petitioner, he is a Scheduled Tribe and the aforementioned Tank situated on Khata No. 169. Plot No. 67-68 under Mauza Hamsada was constructed by the father of the Petitioner in the year 1956. After his death, the Petitioner inherited it but during the time of preparation of settlement records, it wrongly came to be record...
Tag this Judgment!Ache Lal Napit Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR782(Jhr)]
Tapen Sen, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner in the instant case prays for quashing the letter dated 14.2.2002 issued by the Project Officer, Shatabdi OCP of BCCL, Moraidih Colliery, Barora Area, District-Dhanbad whereby and where under the petitioner was sought to be superannuated with effect from 1.7.2002 contrary to his date of birth recorded in the service book.3. The petitioner joined M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited on 6.3.1972 as a Pump Operator in the Moradih Colliery. It is stated that in the year 1978, the Form-B Register of the petitioner was, opened and an extract of the photocopy of the said Form-B Register is Annexure-1 to the petition. Annexure-2 shows that as per S1 No. 1539 thereof, the petitioner's date of birth was recorded as 28 years as in 1978. In other words, the petitioner's date of birth has to be deemed as 1950. On 1.10.1992; the petitioner's service particulars were is- sued vide Annexure-2 where again his age as '28 years as in 1978' was accepted. Ther...
Tag this Judgment!Radhey Shyam Prasad Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: [2005(1)JCR60(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. In this Writ Petition the petitioner prays for quashing a portion of the memo dated 8.9.2003 (Annexure-14) issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Pakur by which the salary of the petitioner and others have been ordered to be kept in abeyance on the basis of an order dated 8.9.2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The ground for passing the said impugned order appears to be that the petitioner is said to have been illegally appointed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 32 (thirty two) persons have been included in the impugned order but this Writ Petition is confined only to the petitioner. By reason of an Amendment Application, registered as 1A No. 340 of 2004, the petitioner has also made a prayer for quashing the memo No. 203 dated 9.2.2004 as contained in Annexure-16 of the said Amendment Application terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that his appointment was found to be forged. The petitioner also prays f...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshman Vishwakarma and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR785(Jhr)]
ORDERVishnudeo Narayan, J.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to implead Badri Vishwakarma and Bharat Lal Vishwakarma as opposite parties 2 and 3 respectively.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused IA No. 1383 of 2004 at flag 'A' whereby parties in this revision have compromised the case and have also sought to leave of the Court for compounding the offence.3. Section 320(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that High Court or Court of Sessions acting, in the exercise of its powers of revision under Section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this section. Here in this case conviction is under Sections 323, 324, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 323 is compoundable for which no leave of the Court is required. However, for Section 324 leave of the Court is necessary. So far Sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, they are not compoundable but it is settled pr...
Tag this Judgment!Sailesh Bhardwaj Sharma Alias Shailesh Bhardwaj and ors. Vs. State of ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1763; [2005(1)JCR308(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This application has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in connection with Complaint Case No. 389 of 1996 including the order dated 5th November, 1996, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 498A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, as also the order dated 6th August, 2004, whereby and whereunder the application filed on behalf of the complainant (Smt. Mumta Sharma) seeking permission to withdraw the said complaint case has been rejected and all proceedings subsequent thereto in connection with the complaint case aforesaid, now pending in the Court of Shri Santosh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.2. It is submitted that petitioner No. 1 (Sailesh Bhardwaj Sharma alias Sailesh Bhardwaj) is the husband of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 (Smt. Mumta Sharma). Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the in-laws of the said opposite party...
Tag this Judgment!Brajesh Bahadur Singh, S.D.J.M. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1558; [2005(1)JCR309(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla has made reference to this Court under Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the following questions :(i) When the offences under the Essential Commodities Act, are punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, then how the provisions of Section 326(3) will be applicable.(ii) Whether after the expiry of Special amendment Act of 1981 the provisions of Section 12A of 1955 Act, will be applicable on the cases registered during the continuance of 1981 Act but still pending?(iii) Whether in absence of notification by the Central' Government with the approval of Parliament as required under Section 12A of 1955 Act, cases still pending can be tried summarily, and Section 326(3) of Cr PC will be applicable to those cases?(iv) Whether in case of non-application of Section 326(3) Cr PC the evidence recorded by Special Judge (under the Special Amendment Act, 1981) Court of S.D.J.M can act and read those statements of witne...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »