Jharkhand Court April 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.
Sant Lal Sahini Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR27(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this application the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to fix and pay the full pension calculated on the basis of the revised pay scale and other admissible retiral benefits.2. According to the petitioner, he retired on 31.10.1999 from the post of Additional Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Giridih (S). According to him though he was entitled for fixation of final pension and payment of the amounts on the basis of the revised scale, but the respondents have not considered the same and not fixed his pension and other benefits on the revised scale.3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Earlier there was some confusion and now the Jharkhand State Electricity Board and the Bihar State Elasticity Board have reached to an agreement that the admissible dues will be paid to the petitioner.4. Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner stating therein that Board's notification has be...
Om Prakash Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretary a ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR326(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for the direction to the respondents to suitably post the petitioner against the vacant sanctioned post of In Charge Superintending Engineer in the department of Drinking Water and Sanitation and for payment of arrears of salary from 1.9.2003 till date.2. The case has a chequered background. Earner the petitioner was sought to be transferred from Dhanbad to Sahebganj Division on the post of Executive Engineer. The petitioner having been aggrieved by the said order had taken resort to this Court in a writ application being W.P.(S) No. 4681/2003 which was culminated into L.P.A. No. 639/2003. The Division Bench while disposing of the said L.P.A. passed the following order :'For the foregoing reasons and considerations, we are also of the opinion that the appellant should not have been transferred as an Executive Engineer and similarly, the respondent No. 6, should not have been described as a Superintending Engineer...
Krishna Chandra Das Vs. Government of India Through Secretory M.O.H.A. ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR336(Jhr)]
1. The appellant was enrolled as Sub-Inspector (Exe) in Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as 'C.I.S.F.') with effect from 1st June, 1972. He was thereafter promoted to the rank of Inspector (Exe) with effect from 25th July, 1992. Admittedly, he attained the age of fifty years on 25th January, 1999.2. On his attaining the age of fifty years, his case came up for review before the Review Committee headed by the Director General, Central Industrial Security Force to assess his suitability or otherwise for further retention in the Force having regard to the provision of Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules.3. As will appear from the order issued on 30th October, 2000, the appellant was not found fit by the Review Committee for retention in service and, accordingly, he was prematurely retired from service with immediate effect in the public interest from 1st July, 2000.4. Challenging the said order, the appellant filed a writ application, being C.W.J.C. No. 721 of 20...
Sant Lal Roy and Etc. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3668
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Since both the revision applications arise out of the same impugned order, therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.2. The petitioner Sant Lal Roy in Cr. Rev. No. 1024 of 2003 and the petitioner Shashank Shekhar Singh in Cr. Rev. No. 1094 of 2003 have challenged the order dated 20-9-2003, passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi, in Special Case No. 14 of 2001, whereby the learned Special Judge (Vigilance) rejected the petition filed by them under Section 239 read with Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code for discharge of the petitioners from the said case.3. The facts in short are that Vigilance P.S. Case No. 9 of 2001 was registered on 5-7-2001 against the Shashank Shekhar Singh, who was Block Development Officer, Kuru and Sant Lal Roy, who was the Block Statistical Officer for the alleged commission of the offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case of the prosecut...
Shiv Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR376(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner with other similarly situated persons and send his name for the purpose of appointment to the post of Panchayat Sewak after giving him the benefit of age relaxation as has been given to other similarly situated persons. It has been stated that the persons, similarly, situated, and even two persons junior to him have been given promotion to the post of Panchayat Sewak.2. The petitioner's case is that in a meeting of Executive Committee held on 05.10.1988 for consideration of the appointment on the post of Dalpati, the petitioner's name was recommended and accordingly he was appointed as Dalpati at Baraini Panchayat of District Chatra. His appointment was approved by the District Panchayati Raj Officer by memo No. 78 Mu. Dated 16.06.1988 (Annexure-2). The petitioner claims that since thereafter he has been continuously serving as Dalpati and getti...
Shabra Khatoon and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-20-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3292; II(2005)DMC319
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The prayer of the petitioner in this application is to set aside the impugned order dated 30.7.2003 whereby the learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh rejected the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 245, Cr.P.C. for discharge.3. The facts in short are that O.P. No. 2 Afsana Khatoon lodged a complaint before the C.J.M., Hazaribagh, against the petitioners, for allegedly committing the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 386, 406, 306, 120-B and 34 of the I.P.C.4. In view of the argument advanced and the points raised on behalf of the petitioners, it is not necessary to state the allegations made in the complaint petition. Suffice it to say that the Judicial Magistrate after examining the complainant and holding enquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C., took cognizance of the offences under Sections 498-A and 323, I.P.C. against the petitioners. Thereafter, before charge five witnesses including the complainant were examined under the provisions of ...
Smt. Kaveri Roy and anr. Vs. Bhagmat Tudu and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-20-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC576; [2005(3)JCR335(Jhr)]
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed on 26th July, 2004 and thereafter certain defects were noticed by the department. Out of five defects No. 2 to 5 have since been ignored and only defect No. 1 which relates to non-supply of the particulars of the parties and detailed address in the certified copy of the judgment/award appealed against, has been kept for consideration today.2. Mr. Ananda Sen, learned Advocate pointed out that the practice of drawing up of a decree after passing of the Award by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal in terms of Section 168 of the Act was discontinued pursuant to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited v. Hariman Mahto and Ors., 2003 (1) JCR 573 (Jhr). wherein it was observed that the provisions of Section 168 of the aforesaid Act merely require the making of an Award, but that the Tribunal after passing of a judgment, had also taken the burd...
Ram Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-20-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3302; [2005(3)JCR476(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. The question for consideration in this case is, as to whether, in view of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, this application for grant of Anticipatory Bail, which arises of Complaint Case No. 630 of 1996 in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 420 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is maintainable and whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for by him in this application2. The complainant Most. Parvatia Harin, filed a complaint case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, against four accused persons, including the petitioner, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 630 of 1996. It has been alleged in the complaint petition that she retired as a Sweeper from Giridih Municipality. She was entitled to get gratuity after retirement but in spite of repeated demands, she...
Dhaneshwar Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-20-2005
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR502(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order issued by the Notification bearing No. 11, dated 29.1.1998, under the signature of the Deputy Secretary to the Government, State of Bihar whereby the petitioner has been awarded two fold punishment (i) for recovery of Rs. 1,94,580/-with a rider that if it is not recovered during the service tenure, it may be recorded even from the retiral dues; and (ii) bar on promotion for two years.2. The petitioner's case is that in the year 1984-85 an agreement L.C.B. 7 of 1984-85 was entered into between the authorities of respondent No. 3 and one Budhu Construction Pvt. Ltd. for earth work and bed lining between 7.22 to 22.49 and 25.25 to 29.83 R.D. of Kharkai Barrage, Right Main Canal. The said work was executed by the contractor and the whole amount of provisional sanctioned rate was disbursed to the contractor by the order of Chief Engineer, communicated by letter No. 1615, dated 26.11.1988. At th...
Pradeep Kumar Vs. Mineral Area Development Authority and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-20-2005
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR104(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter No. 149 dated 24.6.2004 issued by the Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad whereby the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that he has crossed the age limit of 35 years.2. The petitioner's case is that his mother died in harness on 31.10.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application for his compassionate appointment on 6.12.2001. The petitioner's date of birth is 5.4.1967 and as such on the date of application the petitioner's age was 31 years 8 months and one day.3. According to the petitioner after scrutiny of the said application the compassionate Appointment Committee recommended the name of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment. The competent authority also approved the same and the news item was also published in the local daily in its edition dated 25.4.2003 but in spite of the same letter of appointment was...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »