Jharkhand Court April 2004 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.
Yogendra Prasad Sinha Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-09-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR600(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The prayer of the petitioner in this application is for direction to the respondents to consider the case of promotion in view of the office: order No. 61, dated 29.12.1999 which has not been given effect till date and further on the ground that junior to the petitioner in gradation list has been given such promotion.2. It is staled that the petitioner was appointed as 2nd Grade Pump Khalasi in the year 1966 and was thereafter promoted as Pump Driver in the year 1978. It is further stated that gradation list was published vide office No. 309, dated 3.11.1970, wherein the petitioner tats been shown to be at serial No. 97. It is further stated that by issue of Annexure-2, dated 29.12.1999, the Superintendent Engineer, Public Health Engineer. Ranchi Circle. Ranch!, issued promotion order, whereby the petitioner as well as other persons were ordered to be promoted to the post of Electric Fitter, Grade-I.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the Supe...
Mahalaxmi Fibres and Industries Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Cou ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-09-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR634(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard the parties.2. This is an application filed by Mahalaxmi Fibres and Industries Limited [The petitioner of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3438 of 1997 (R) for review of the judgment delivered by this Court on 28.04.2003. Accordingly to Mr. K.N. Prasad, learned Senior Advocate, at paragraph-4 infra of the judgment, since it was admitted by both the parties that the respondent No. 2 (meaning thereby the workman) was not connected with reference case No. 16 of 1991 therefore the Award itself was bad because it did not give a finding as to whether that workman was the concerned workman in the pending dispute.3. Let it be recorded that this case relates to miscellaneous case No. 2 of 1992. It is evident from language of reference case No. 16 of 1991 (Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit herein) that the same was as follows :--'Whether workman of Mahalaxmi Fibres and Industries Ltd., Ormanjhi, Ranchi are entitled wages for the period of lock-out from 22.12.1989 to ...
Ram Sharan Sai Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-09-2004
Reported in: 2006CriLJ297
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 25-5-1999 and order of sentence dated 26-5-1999 passed in Sessions Trial No. 363/97/ 33/97, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner Loharadaga held the appellant guilty under Sections 314/34 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo RI for seven years.2. Prosecution case in brief is that Badu Oraon lodged an FIR on 29-4-97 at about 9.30 AM at Bhandra P. S. to the effect that his daughter Sukri Kumari, aged about 20 years, is blind of both the eyes and in the absence of family members appellant Ram Sharan Sai forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the blind girl and she became pregnant and when pregnancy became visible then she narrated the occurrence of rape by the appellant. Informant wanted to lodge FIR at the police station but appellant Ram Sharan Sai and Bhuneshwar Sai (acquitted) gave a threat to kill him and out of fear the informant kept mum. Thereafte...
Charanjeet Kaur Gill Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR434(Jhr)]
ORDERAmreshwar Sahay, J. 1. The order dated 4.2.2002 (Annexure-8) passed the District Superintendent of Education. East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, has been challenged in this writ petition, whereby the DSE has cancelled the approval of the appointment of the petitioner to the post of a teacher in Kalgidhar Middle School on the ground that she was untrained and thereby has directed the Managing Committee of the School to terminate the service of the petitioner in view of the Departmental Rules and in case the services of the petitioner is not terminated by the Managing Committee of the School, then the Department shall not be responsible in any way for the payment of the salary to the petitioner. 2. According to the case of the petitioner, she was working as Assistant Teacher in Kalgidhar Middle School, Tuila Dungri, Jamshedpur which is a minority School and for which the entire financial assistance is being provided by the State of Jharkhand.3. The petitioner being a member of Scheduled Ca...
Prabhu NaraIn Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR554(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is to quash the order as contained in Annexure-13 passed by the Managing Director, Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation, rejecting the representation of the petitioner after holding that for the period of September, 1991 to July, 1992, the petitioner is not entitled to the salary as he did not work for the said period and, therefore, no salary can be paid to him.2. The petitioner, an employee of the Tourism Development of the Government of Bihar, was deputed to the Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation (hereinafter called as BSTDC for the sake of convenience). Thereafter since his service was not required by the BSTDC and, therefore, his services were returned back to his parent department on 29.07.2001 and he was relieved with effect from 01.08.1991 as it appears from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. The petitioner thereafter joined on 05.08.1991, which was duly accepted. The petitioner ...
Tapeshwar Nonia Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. Through Its C.M.D. and ors ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR437(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard the parties.2. The matter relates to compassionate appointment. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 3.5.2001 passed by the respondent No. 6 whereby the application for compassionate appointment has been rejected.3. The petitioner's case is that his father was an employee of the respondent CCL as piece rated worker in Kedla underground colliery in the district of Hazaribagh. He died in harness on 2.11.1997. The petitioner's mother filed application for compassionate appointment and she was called for interview on 23.4.1998 by respondent No. 6 with relevant documents. The petitioner's mother was told by the respondents to file application for compassionate appointment of the male son of the deceased husband who has attained 18 years of age. The petitioner said to have filed application for appointment on compassionate ground and the same was forwarded to the committee for a decision. The said application was finally rejected on 3.5.2001 by passi...
Om Prakash Ram Vs. State of Bihar Through Department of Human Resource ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR426(Jhr)]
ORDERAmreshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties.2. The claim of the petitioner in this writ- application is for a direction to the respondent No. 5, i.e. the Chairman of the Governing Body of the Kaluram Modi Memorial Bananchal College, Giridih, Jharkhand to appoint the petitioner on the second post of Lecturer in Commerce on the basis of the recommendation of Bihar College Service Commission dated 21.05.2001.3. The respondents on the basis of Annexure-A to the counter affidavit i.e. the notification dated 10.09.2001, issued by the Government pf Jharkhand has submitted that it has been decided by the Government of Jharkhand that any recommendation made after 14.11.2000 by the Bihar Universities (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission and Bihar College Service Commission, Patna with regard to appointment shall not be taken Into consideration and shall not be recognised and, therefore, the said notification, which was made effective on and from 15.11.2000, the petitioner cannot be grante...
Madan Rajak and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR449(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard the parties.2. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 8.1.2004 passed by ACJM Rajmahal in Barharwa P.S. Case No. 48/03 whereby he has held that prima facie case has made out against the petitioner under Section 304B/34, IPC and issued summons to the petitioner.3. It appears that on the basis of written complaint made by the informant to the Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj, case was registered against the petitioners and one Manoj Rajak under Section 304B/34, IPC. The police took up charge for investigation of the case and on inspection it was found that there is no evidence against the petitioners and, thereafter petitioners were not sent up for trial and the case found true only against Manoj Rajak for an offence under Section 300, IPC and the police submitted final report/charge-sheet on 30.11.2003 in the Court of ACJM Rajmahal.4. From perusal of FIR and statement of various witnesses recorded in the case diary and also on the basis of the...
Soma Oraon Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR445(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Reference in this case may be made to the order dated 19.03.2004 by which the respondent No. 2 was directed to be present in Court today. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents states that the description of the respondent No. 2 (i.e. Post Master General Head Post Office, Near Saheed Chowk, Ranchi) is an Incorrect description and the correct description is 'Chief Post Master General, Jharkhand Circle': Be that as it may, an application for exemption from personal appearance is also on record which has been filed on behalf of Chief Post Master General praying inter alia that he be exempted for the reasons stated therein. In view of the statements made in that application to the effect that after verification a total sum of Rs. 98,785/- has been paid to the petitioner on 23.03.2001. Mr. R.P Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner does not press this application any further and accordingly prays that he be allowed to withdr...
Harendra Prasad Gond Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Secretary, Minis ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR425(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J. 1. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma appears for the petitioner; Mr. Ram Kishore Prased represents the respondent No. 1; Mr. Delip Jerath represents the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4; respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are represented by the learned Additional Advocate General and the respondent No. 8 is represented by Mr. Binod Poddar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for htm.2. An application has been filed by the respondent No. 8 for vacating and/or modifying the order passed earlier by this Court on 30.01.2004 directing maintenance of status quo. According to the respondent No. 8 the order of status quo could not have been passed because the principal question that deals with the issue revolves around an adjudication as to whether the petitioner Is a member of the 'Gond' community or not. Let it be recorded that in an earlier writ application, the petitioner had come up before this Court vide WP (C) No. 2372 of 2002 when he felt himself aggrieved by an order dated 2.03.2002 passed by the...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »