Jharkhand Court January 2006 Judgments
indradeo Paswan Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-31-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR81(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. By impugned notification dated 24th February, 2005, in exercise of power conferred by Section 72(2) of the Bihar Reorganization Act, the Central Government allocated successor State of Bihar to the petitioner.2. In pursuance of the said notification, petitioner has been relieved by impugned notification dated 10th May, 2005 to join services in the State of Bihar. The aforesaid order, allocating the State of Bihar and relieving order have been challenged on one of the grounds that the respondents have not passed any order on the objection preferred by the petitioner nor noticed the option as was given by him. It is alleged that without application of mind and taking into consideration the post which petitioner was holding and the order of promotion, the impugned order of allocation has been issued.3. From the enclosure attached to the writ petition, it will be evident that in terms with the Scheme of the Central Government, options were called for, from all ...
Tag this Judgment!Barka Murmu and ors. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-31-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2511; [2006(2)JCR2(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The appellants 1, 3, 7, 6, 2, 4 and 5 were arrayed as Al to A7 respectively before the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 20 of 1988/15 of 1989. They were tried under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC and also under Section 323 of the IPC. In this judgment the appellants should be referred as Al to A7 in the same order as they were before the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge.2. The allegation against the accused 1 to 7 in the charge is that at about 6 p.m. on the 7,5.1987 they, in furtherance of common intention of one another, assaulted Gobind Murmu and also caused injury to Som Murmu leading to his death at the Jamtara Hospital after six days. The trial Judge, finding the appellants guilty, has sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC. He did not award any separate sentence under Section 323 of the IPC.3. The facts can be briefly narrated as follows :-PW 1, Gobind Mumnu and PW 3, Soren Murmu are the brothers of ...
Tag this Judgment!Bindeshwar Choudhary Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-31-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR75(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. Mr. Gautam Sen Gupta, Regional Commissioner, D- I, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Dhanbad appeared and submitted that apart from Provident Fund, the Pension amount has also been paid.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have paid the pension after thirty-three months of his retirement, but no interest has been paid.3. Having heard counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the respondents have not released the Pension, while this Court is not inclined to 'impose any cost, taking into consideration and fact that there was no laches on the part of the petitioner, direct, the Regional Commissioner, D-I, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Dhanbad to pay the petitioner interest @ 5% on total arrears of pension as has been paid, to be calculated from the date of retirement, till the amount has been paid. The interest should be paid within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order,4. Appearance...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Kalyani Prasad Mishra and Sharat Chandra Singh Deo Vs. State of Bi ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-31-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR82(Jhr)]
N.N. Tiwari, J.1. These two appeals have been preferred by the appellants-petitioners against the common judgment passed in their writ applications. The appellants had filed the said writ petitions on a common grievance grounded on the similar facts that they have been working as full time Ayurvedic Medical Officers in the State Ayurvedic Hospitals for more than 10 years, yet their services have not been regularized and they are not getting their salary.2. According to the appellants they are Graduates in Ayurvedic Medicines and Surgery from recognized institutions and they were registered by the Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines Board under the provisions of Bihar Development of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine Act, 1951. In the year 1983 vacancies for Ayurvedic and Homeopathic doctors were advertised by the Zila Parishad, Chaibasa in the pay scale of Rs. 730-1080. The appellants applied for the post of Ayurvedic doctors and were duly selected after facing the interview. The appella...
Tag this Judgment!Shivlal Marandi Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-31-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2514
1. The accused appeals.2. The appellant, on being tried for an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Trial Judge and challenging the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed.3. The allegation against the appellant is that at 11.45 p.m., on 3-4-1987, he shot two arrows causing injuries on the hand and on the abdomen of Munshi Murmu, husband of Pano Hansda, P.W.4, and that on account of the injuries, Munshi Murmu died.4. The prosecution, in order to establish the above allegation, examined six witnesses before the Trial Court and the facts, as could be discerned from oral and documentary evidence, can be briefly summarized as follows:P.W.4, Pano Hansda, is the wife of the deceased, Munshi Murmu. There were disputes between the deceased and the accused and that on account of the existing animosity, according to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place at 11.45 p.m. on 3-4-1987.5. On the date of incident, the d...
Tag this Judgment!Akhileshwar Singh @ Akhileshwar Prasad Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand an ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-30-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR30(Jhr)]
ORDERRamesh Kumar Merathia, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.12.2004 (Annexure 5) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar (respondent No. 2) directing the Circle Officer, Madhupur, to initiate a proceeding and pass final order under the provisions of the Bihar privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the impugned order (Annexure 5), the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar has held that the petitioner was granted Basgit Parcha illegally and, therefore it will be an empty formality for the Circle Officer to pass a fresh order on a fresh enquiry.4. Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned Standing Counsel (Land Ceiling), appearing for the State-respondents, submitted that this enquiry was started on the complaint of the villagers and the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar while passing the impugned order, only recorded his prima facie satisfaction for proceeding afresh.5. In view of th...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Normi Topno Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-25-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR108(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner, that now the only grievance is with regard to deduction of Rs. 50.456/; and non-payment of enhanced gratuity and clearness allowance.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the petitioner was granted promotion wrongly, there was no misrepresentation on her pail and, therefore, no recovery of the extra amount can be made. He relied on the decision of the learned Single Judge of Court in the case of Suraj Rai v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2005 (1) JLJR 362 : 2002 (3) JCR 342 (Jhr). He further submitted that moreover prior to the said deduction, the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing.4. Regarding deduction, the stand of the State and the Accountant General is that the petitioner was first appointed as 'Trained Dai' on 16,4.1969. She was promoted/appointed to the post of 'ANM', which she joined on 7.5.1980. On 15.2.1990 she was given time bound promotion with effect from 16.4.1981 an...
Tag this Judgment!incore Metals and Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Boa ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-25-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Jhar97; [2006(2)JCR274(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties on merits for final disposal at this state.2. Petitioner prays for quashing the revised bills raised on the basis of hundred per cent of the contract demand, for the first 12 months, from the date of commencement of supply of electrical energy.3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Tariff notification dated 15.3.2000, (Annexure-B) did not change the second part of stipulation contained in Clause 4(c) of the Agreement (Annexure-1). It is further submitted that on the basis of the agreement dated 14,9.2004, read with the tariff applicable, petitioner was liable to pay the maximum demand charges for the first 12 months of the commencement of supply (i.e. 13.9.2004), on the actual recording of maximum demand for the month. It is further submitted that for the first seven months, the bills were issued correctly le. on the actual recording of maximum demand but thereafter the impugned demands have been served. In support of his cont...
Tag this Judgment!Jatlu Mahato and ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-25-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2503
1. The appellants, who are A-1 to A-10, were put on trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 234 of 1988. They were charged under Sections 302/34, IPC as also under Section 324 and 325 IPC on the allegation that at 8.00 a.m. on 9-6-1984, they, in furtherance of their common intention, caused injuries to Sahdeo Mahto (PW.1), Raghunath Mahto (PW.2), Ram Charitra Mahto (PW.3), Harihar Mahto (PW.4), Basuki Mahto (PW.6), Premlal Mahto (PW.7) and that during the course of the said transaction, they caused injuries to Upendra Mahto resulting in his death. The trial Judge, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, found all the appellants guilty and sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life. The present appeal is against the said conviction and sentence.2. The learned trial Judge also found appellant Raghunath Mahto (A-2) guilty under Section 325 IPC and sentenced him to suffer two years' R.I., while he found appellant Nandkeshwar alias Nankishore M...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Prasad Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Bokaro Steel Plant Cit ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-24-2006
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR358(Jhr)]
1. Petitioner, Bharat Prasad, has filed the instant application for initiation of contempt proceedings against the Opposite Parties and for adequately punishing them for their wilful disobedience of the order dated 1.8.2000 passed by Division Bench of this Court in M.J.C No. 139 of 1999(R).2. For proper appreciation of the case few relevant facts are necessary to be discussed hereinafter.3. For establishing the Bokaro Steel Plant vast tract of land was acquired by the Government resulting in displacement of large number of families. Apart, from payment of compensation to those whose land were acquired, it was decided between the Management of the Steel Plant and the Government that at least one member of each displaced family shall be given employment in the Steel Plant. For giving such appointment on compassionate ground, the displaced persons were divided into two categories. Category No. (i) consists of the persons whose entire lands and building were acquired and Category No. (ii) ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »