Jharkhand Court February 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.
Smt. Usha Devi Vs. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-17-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR357a(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. When the case was taken up on 29th October, 2004 the following order was passed by the Court :'Counsel for the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation is directed to file affidavit, stating therein, (i) as per the scheme what is the time by which the petitioner can be paid his dues. If it is in the 3rd phase of the package programme, the authorities of the Corporation will state whether any person retired/died after the death of the husband of the petitioner has been paid the benefit as per the package programme or not and (ii) what is the time by which they expect to receive fund from the State Government for payment of the dues to the widow/retired employees, whose names are appearing in the 3rd phase list.List this case for admission on 25th November, 2004 within five cases.Let a copy of this, order be handed over to Mr. P.P.N. Roy for needful.'2. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Corporation it is stated that as per the package prog...
Md. SirajuddIn Ansari Vs. Mineral Area Development Authority Through I ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-17-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR335a(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner for a direction on the respondents to pay the amount of retiral benefits, such as provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment, D.A. group insurance and regional allowance etc. Prayer has also been made to direct them to pay salary for the period from January, 2004 to August, 2004.2. According to the petitioner, he was working as an Assistant (Health Department) under the Mineral Development Authority, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as 'MADA') and retired in August, 2004. It is stated that though there is no departmental proceeding pending against him, the respondents have not paid his retiral benefits.3. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is given liberty to make a fresh representation before the Managing Director, Dhanbad, who in his turn, will decide the claim and pay the admitted dues, if found payable, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of representation, failing...
Mosmat Chandrawati Devi (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Neelkanth Barnwal
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-17-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Jhar104; 2005(1)BLJR735
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 31.1.1991 and decree dated 16.2.1991 passed in Title Appeal No. 6 of 1981 whereby and where under the learned Additional District Judge, 1, Deoghar allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Court below and the suit was decreed.2. The plaintiff-respondent brought the suit for declaration that the adoption deed dated 25.2.1977 was illegal, unlawful and not binding upon the plaintiff and for setting aside the deed of adoption and also for declaration that there was no such adoption of defendant 2nd party Radheyshyam by the defendant 1st party Mosmat Chandrawati Devi. As per plaint filed by the plaintiff, one Lakheshear Modi of plaintiff family having no son or daughter adopted plaintiff Nilkantha Barnawal on Sri Basant Panchmi day in the year 1971 B.S. about 12 to 13 years ago after observing all the formalities by performing puja and necessary ceremonies and actual giving and tak...
Kaushalya Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-17-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR356(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. According to the petitioner, her husband late Madan Mohan Prasad No. 1, was Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Cabinet (Vigilance), Technical Examination Cell (Rural Development Department). While in service, her husband was not paid the arrears of salary on revision of pay for the period from 1st May, 2000 to 14th November, 2000 i.e. the period he was in the services of combined State of Bihar as also for the period from 15th November, 2000 to 31st July, 2003 i.e. the period while he was under the State of Jharkhand. He subsequently died on 5th June, 2004.2. In the present case, grievance has been made that the respondents have not yet paid her the aforesaid benefits, and including the provident fund amount, to which her husband was entitled to.3. Counsel for the State submitted that if the petitioner brings her grievances to the notice of the competent authority, it will be looked into.4. In the facts and circumstance...
Rameshwar Prasad Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-16-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR140]; [2005(2)JCR198(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter No, 1697 dated 3.6.2004 (Annexure-3) passed by the respondent No. 2 fixing the pension of the petitioner on the basis of Rs. 9670/- as last pay drawn instead of Rs. 10120/-.2. Petitioner's case is that he retired on 31.10.2000 as Accounts Assistant. He moved this Court, vide WP (S) No. 2298/03, for fixation of his pension on the basis of last pay drawn by him, which was disposed of on 25.9.2003 with a liberty to him to approach respondent No. 2 who, in turn, would enquire into the matter and determine as to whether pension of the petitioner was properly fixed, taking into consideration the last pay drawn by him or not (Annexure-1). He accordingly made representation. Petitioner's claim has been rejected by the impugned order dated 6.3.2004 (Annexure-3).Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the cases of Arjun Prasad Yadav v. State, 2003 (4) JCR 682 and Narayan Singh v. State, 2004 (1) JCR 324, and submitted that th...
SarfuddIn Ansari Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-16-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR332a(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This application has been preferred by petitioner for direction on the respondents to correct his date of birth in the service record showing it as 3.5.1948 as per the Matriculation certificate. When it was opposed that date of birth cannot be altered after long delay, counsel for the petitioner relied upon a Single Judge decision of this Court in Birendra Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, reported in 2001 (2) JLJR 213. In the said case though there was a delay of about 17 years he was permitted to correct the date of birth recorded in the service book.2. However, after hearing counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to accept this submission as made on behalf of the petitioner for the grounds mentioned hereinunder.3. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in the service of the State on 19.8.1955 whereinafter his service book was opened. The date of birth has already been recorded therein and the signature and thumb impression of the petitioner was t...
Ranglal Sah Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-16-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR335(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. According to petitioner, he was in the services of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (hereinafter it shall be referred to as 'JSEB' for short) and retired on 30.4.2003 from the post of Fitter Grade-II, Testing and Commissioning Division- I, Ranchi.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that provisional pension has been paid but it has not been finalized and other retrial benefits such as, gratuity, group insurance and leave encashment etc. have not been paid. It is stated that arrear on revision of pay has also not been paid.3. Counsel for the JSEB submitted that the matter will be looked into and if any amount is found payable can be paid subject to payment of arrears on revision of pay which is to be paid as per the scheme.4. Having heard counsel for the parties, as the matter requires determination by the respondents at first instance, the case is remitted to the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Transmission Zone-I, Ranchi to determine and to d...
Sukhdeo Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-16-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR324(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This writ petition has been preferred by petitioner for direction on respondents to compute his final pension after fixation of pay-scale in the light of three promotions granted to the petitioner vide order dated 4th September, 1992 and 31st August, 1998, as contained in Annexures 1 to 3.2. It appears that the petitioner, while in service, was punished vide Memo No. 334 dated 3rd August, 1999 and subsequently, he retired on 30th April, 2000. However, it is not clear as to why pension has not been finalized taking into consideration the orders of promotion as referred above, if it has been granted.3. Counsel for the Accountant General, Jharkhand referred to one of the enclosures (Annexure-6), a copy of Memo No. 567 dated 2.6.2000. By the said order, the Deputy Collector (Establishment), Dhanbad has passed orders with regard to part of the period. However, rest of the matter requires to be determined by the authorities.4. In the facts and circumstances, ...
Satya Narayan Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-16-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR336(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. This writ petition was preferred by Satya Narayan Yadav for direction on respondents to fix his pension under the revised scale of pay and pay him the arrears of salary on revision of pay and the rest of the gratuity amount amounting to Rs. 81,012/- the rest of the Group Insurance amount of Rs. 50,000/-; leave encashment of Rs. 20,000/- etc.2. When the case was taken up, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, Satya Narayan Yadav, died after filing the present writ petition. He wanted to substitute his widow for grant of such benefit. However, as I find that the writ petition has already awaited and the widow, at first instance, requires to claim the benefit before the authority, instead of giving liberty to file as petition for substitution, the widow of Satya Narayan Yadav is given liberty to approach the competent authority for death-cum-retrial benefits to which she is entitled. If any such representation is filed the competent aut...
Gangadhar Bhandari and ors. Vs. Government of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-16-2005
Reported in: [2005(2)JCR124(Jhr)]
ORDERRamesh Kumar Merathia, J.1. Heard Mr. Ram Balak Mahato, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents.2. All these cases involve similar question and accordingly they are being disposed of by this common order.3. In W.P.(S) Nos. 5386, 5387, 5388, 6849 and 6322 of 2004, Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that separate Court fees for all the petitioners may be exempted as they have challenged the common decision of the District Establishment Committee dated 31.8.2004. He relied on the case of 1998 (2) PLJR 765 (Smt. Krishna Pati Devi and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.). Learned Advocate General submitted that he has got no objection if the Court fees are exempted.In the circumstances, payment of separate sets of Court fees for all the petitioners is exempted.4. Now merits. Though the petitioners have raised several contentions in their pleadings, Mr. R.B. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »