Jharkhand Court December 2005 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.
C.M.D., B.C.C.L. and ors. Vs. Baleshwar Singh
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-13-2005
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR402a(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The respondent-writ petitioner was working under the appellant, Bharat Coking Coal Limited. By letter dated 7th September, 2001, he was informed that he would attain the age of 60 years, on 7.4.2002 and hence, would retire from service on 1st May, 2002. The working respondent disputed the date of birth and the age, on the basis of which he was asked to superannuate and challenged the letter dated 7th September, 2001 before writ Court. Learned Single Judge noticed the submissions made on behalf of the workman-respondent that the date of birth recorded in the Identity Card was struck down and changed from 11th August, 1947 to 7th April, 1942. Having noticed the aforesaid fact, learned single Judge directed the appellant to constitute a Medical Board of three Doctors to examine the workman-respondent and to assess his age. The appellant kept in abeyance the order of retirement.2. We have gone through the enclosures attached with the counter-affidavit filed in the writ application....
Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors. Vs. Lal Mohan Prasad and an ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-12-2005
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR346a(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, delay in preferring this letters patent appeal is hereby condoned.2. In this letters patent appeal, the appellants have challenged the order of the learned Single Judge, setting aside the order of punishment dated 17.11.1999 to withhold one annual increment and for realization of penal rent from the market rate for unauthorized occupation of the quarter, on the ground that the said order was not passed by a competent authority.3. Learned counsel, appearing for the appellants, submits that the order was passed by the competent authority, namely, Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna, and the learned Single Judge without notice to the Bihar State Electricity Board (appellant) came to the conclusion that the impugned order was passed by a person, who was not competent. He further submits that the impugned order was passed by the Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna, and in support of the said plea, he has also prod...
Md. Majharul Haque Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-12-2005
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR19(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The appellant was suspended in the year 1997 but no departmental proceedings were initiated. He challenged the suspension order on the ground that the order of suspension has not been revoked inspite of the fact that seven years have elapsed. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition which was being challenged before us in this appeal.2. It could be seen from the materials placed before us that though the appellant was suspended in the year 1997 no proceedings were initiated against him only on the ground that a criminal case is pending before a criminal Court. It is admitted fact that though a criminal case is pending, the appellant's case for revocation of suspension has not been taken up and no proceedings have been initiated inspite of the fact that there is a Government Circular bearing No. 605 dated 18th August, 1978.3. In view of the above, we feel that a direction has to be issued to the 1st respondent, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resource Developme...
Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam Vs. Harish Reddy and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-12-2005
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR493(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 17.06.2005 passed by the learned Court below whereby the petitioner's petition for amendment has been partly allowed and partly rejected.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is contrary to law as the Court below has refused the prayer for incorporation of certain facts which are necessary for the effective adjudication of the controversy between the parties.3. Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submitted that the Court below has acted judiciously and has exercised its jurisdiction properly in partly refusing the petitioner's prayer for incorporating the statements which are nothing but interpretation of certain provisions of law and interpretation of the terms of the documents. Learned Counsel submitted that the said interpretation and provisions of law are not the relevant facts to be incor...
Citizen's Cause Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-09-2005
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR205(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Advocate General submits that as on 28.11.2005, no matter was pending with the Government for orders to be passed requiring sanction and also submits that the Government gives an undertaking that if any request is made for sanction, it will be disposed of within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the said request. This writ application is disposed of.2. Let copies of this order be given to the counsel for the parties....
Bihar Foundary and Castings Ltd. Vs. Jharkhand State Pollution Control ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-07-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)BLJR105; [2006(1)JCR164(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in letter dated 8.1.2005 issued under the signature of Chairman, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, Ranchi directing the petitioner to close down its Unit.2. Petitioner is an Industry, manufactures Iron & Steel Ingot and also CTD Bar and Rods since 1978. Petitioner-Unit was granted consent by the Bihar Pollution Board as required under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 for the period till 31.12.1999. Thereafter, every year such consent was granted and last consent granted by the Bihar Board was up to 31.12.2001. After the creation of Jharkhand Pollution Control Board, petitioner applied for consent, which was granted till 31.12.2002. Petitioner thereafter, applied for further consent but the same was not granted because of the alleged violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under. It is contended by the petitioner...
Naveen Kumar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-07-2005
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR162(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey learned Counsel for the petitioners and Junior Counsel to Advocate General.2. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the revised result published by the respondents in the newspaper namely, 'Hindustan' on 23.8.2005 whereby earlier result published on 29.5.2005 has been revised without any legal basis and further for a direction to the respondents to issue appointment letters to the petitioners for the post of Constable Driver.3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass :Pursuant to the advertisement No. 2 of 2004 for appointment to the post of Constable Driver for different districts, petitioner filled up forms and appeared in the test. The result-cum-merit list of successful candidates was published in the newspaper dated 29.5.2005 through which petitioners were declared successful. However, the said result was revised and the revised result was published on 23.8.2005 in which persons other than petiti...
Smt. Nagi OraIn Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-05-2005
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR352(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The husband of the petitioner namely Rodha Oraon died in harness on 14.7.2003 when he was posted under Area Electricity Board, Ranchi as skilled labour. After his death, his son Soma Binha was given appointment on compassionate ground. After doing duty for few years Soma Binha died while he was in service. After the death of Soma Binha, the petitioner seeks compassionate appointment of her second son.2. In my view compassionate appointment is not propriety right which is liable to be inherited so long as the family does not become extinct. Compassionate appointment is an exception to the Constitutional Guarantee given to the citizen under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. In my view, therefore, this exceptional benefit can not be extended and can not be made hereditary. The relief as sought for is wholly misconceived and liable to be rejected.3. So far the payment of admitted legal dues for death-cum-retiral benefit is concerned, the petitioner is entitled ...
Suresh Kumar Nishad Vs. Central Coalfield Limited and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-05-2005
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR343(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner prays for quashing the order (as contained in letter dated 16.3.2004 issued by the Personnel Manager, Bokaro Colliery, wereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment as an adopted son of late Sukhiya Mallahin, ex employee of the colliery has been denied.3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was legally adopted by late Sukhiya Mallahin by virtue of registered deed of adoption dated 7.1.1993.4. From perusal of the record, it appears that the date of birth of petitioner is 12.1.1972 and in 1993 when the adoption deed was executed he was 21 years old. According to Section 10 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 a person can be taken in adoption only when, besides other conditions he or she has not completed the age of 15 years, unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits persons who have completed the age of 15 years being taken in adoption.5. Learned c...
Swapan Kumar Bandopadhyay Vs. Sail Through Its Unit Bokaro Steel City ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-02-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Jhar19; [2006(1)JCR1(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. The only question referred to and sought to be answered by this Bench in these appeals is : Whether an appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent (commonly known as Letters Patent Appeal--LPA) is maintainable against an order passed by a single Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :Appellant Swapan Kumar Bandopadhyay of L.P.A. No. 312 of 2004 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Refractories Limited (hereinafter referred to as M/s. B.R.L.). He was allotted a Flat No. 6013 in Sector IV-F of Bokaro Steel City. Even after his dismissal from service, he did not vacate the official quarter. On an application jointly preferred by 'Bokaro Steel Plant' of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the SAIL) and M/s. B.R.L., a proceeding under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 1971 Act) was initiated against the appellant, registered as A/...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »