Jharkhand Court February 2006 Judgments
Barun Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR386(Jhr)]
1. The father of the appellant, late Niranjan Prasad Tanti, who was in the services of the State, having died in harness on 16th November, 1993, the appellant applied for compassionate appointment. The Establishment Committee recommended his name for appointment against class-IV post vide its decision dated 29th November, 1996. The appellant was appointed against class-IV post on 13th May, 1997 and joined the post.2. After about five years, the appellant filed the writ petition for a direction on the respondents to consider his case for appointment against class-III post. One of the grounds was taken that his name was originally recommended for class-III post and subsequently some other persons have been appointed against class-III post but learned Single Judge refused to grant relief.3. Similar issue fell for consideration before a Bench of this Court in Ramashray Shukla and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2002 (2) JCR 541 (Jhr.). In the said case, the Court held that ...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Committee of Dinabandhu Middle School Bengali Linguistic ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR224(Jhr)]
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 15.9.2004 passed by learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 1228/97 whereby the learned Single judge allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) and quashed the order of termination of the petitioner from service.3. Mr. Indrajeet Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant firstly submitted that the writ petition itself was not maintainable against the appellant-Managing Committee of the Minority school aided by the Government.4. Admittedly the school in question is a minority school aided by the Government and run by a trust. The school is also governed by the provisions of Bihar Non-Government Elementary School's (Taking over Management and Control) Act, 1976 and the rules framed thereunder. In such circumstance it cannot be held that the action of the Managing Committee is not subject to judicial review...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Shankar Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR351(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioner, a senior citizen aged about 74 years, who retired from the services of the State on 30th June, 1989, has preferred this writ petition for a direction on the respondents to fix his pension property. According to him, his pension should have been fixed at Rs. 7,150/- in place of Rs. 6,000/- with effect from 1st January, 1996 and Rs. 14,300-18,300/- in Super Time Scale, which was the revised scale of the original pay scale of Rs. 4,100-5,300/- of the post from which he superannuated.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to Notification No. 3824 dated 17th April, 1993, issued by the then State of Bihar under the orders of the Governor of the State. It appears that the petitioner had earlier moved before Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court for grant of certain benefits, wherein, certain directions were issued. The order of the Court not having been complied with, contempt petition being M.J.C. No. 1 of 1990 was filed, wherein, certain orders wer...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Through the Chief Postmaster General Vs. Chandra ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR18(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This writ petition has been preferred by the Union of India against the judgment and order dated 14th October, 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranch! in O.A. No. 262 of 2002. By the aforesaid judgment and order, while it has been held that the applicant-respondent is more meritorious, directed the petitioner to consider his case for some alternative appointment to the similar post or equivalent post in the nearby place within a stipulated period.2. It appears that a post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (hereinafter to be referred as EDBPM) fell vacant at Bara Banjhi in Santhal Parganas Postal Division (Jharkhand). The names of probable candidates were called for from the Employment Exchange. After scrutiny and recommendation of a Selection Committee, one person was appointed on 30th October, 1998, It was challenged by the respondent-applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 869 of 1998, which was disposed of o...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhat Udyog Vs. Bihar State Financial Corporation and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Jhar76; [2006(2)JCR384(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia and D.P. Singh, JJ.1. This Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 8.1.2002 passed in the writ petition being CWJC No. 2041 of 2000(R).2. The petitioner took loan in 1975 from the respondents-Bihar State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). It became defaulter. A further loan for rehabilitation was given in 1984. The increasing dues of the Corporation were not paid by the petitioner. Some time in 1993, the Corporation floated a Scheme for one time settlement. The appellant applied under the said Scheme. The Corporation calculated the dues at Rs. 17.97 laps together with interest at the rate of 16 per cent per annum chargeable on the remaining amount i.e. excluding the application amount. The petitioner filed a writ petition being CWJC No. 2368 of 1996(R), challenging the said amount. The writ petition was disposed of on 9.1.1997 by remitting the matter back to the Corporation to consider the grievance of the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Narayan Ramswaroop and Company Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR360(Jhr)]
1. All these appeals have been preferred by the appellants against common judgment and order dated 19th July, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby and where under, the writ petitions preferred by the appellants were dismissed.2. It appears that the Respondents issued a Notice Inviting Tender (N.I.T. for short) in the newspaper dated 17th January, 2005 for wholesale supply of country liquor in the State of Jharkhand for the period from 18th March, 2005 to 31st March, 2008. The appellants along with others including intervenors therein, participated in the N.I.T. by submitting tender papers for different districts. Grant of licence in respect to wholesale supply of liquor was proposed to be made in pursuance of the Notification dated 21st May, 2004.3. In the writ petitions, the appellants challenged an order contained in letter No. 729/2005 dated 12th May, 2005 wherein the Commissioner of Excise, Government of Jharkhand invited six persons including intervenors for negotiatio...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR327(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This writ petition has been preferred by petitioner for a direction on the respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 1.2 crores paid by him towards cess on royalty after 4th April, 1991 with 18% interest thereon.2. For better appreciation of the case, it is necessary to notice certain facts, as narrated hereunder.The then State of Bihar was charging cess on royalty in purported exercise of authority under Bengal Cess Act, 1880, which was made applicable to the State of Bihar. Several Ordinance and Notifications were issued from time to time enhancing the rate of cess. Different writ petitions were preferred before the Patna High Court, which were dismissed. In the meantime, in pursuance of similar provisions, the State of Tamil Nadu was realizing cess. The matter moved up to the Supreme Court in 'India Cement Limited and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.', reported in : [1991]188ITR690(SC) . In the said case, the Supreme Court held that royalty is a tax, and as such...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Harizan Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR111(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The appellant having been removed from service on 13th June, 1989, challenged the order before the appropriate forum. It having been declared illegal was set aside and he was reinstated on 16th June, 1997. When the writ petition for payment of arrears of salary for the period from 13th June, 1989 to 16th June, 1997 was preferred, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 16th July, 2003 rejected the claim on the ground that no order or direction was earlier issued for payment of salary. Admittedly when the order of removal was declared illegal no declaration was given as to what salary to which the appellant is entitled. It was neither observed that he should get it nor any rejection was made, as the issue was not raised at that time. The question arises for determination is as to whether in such cases a person can be refused consequential benefits of salary on the ground that no order or direction was passed.2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Divisional Manager, India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Sabitri ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR1125]; [2006(2)JCR235a(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard the counsel for the appellant in the limitation matter being LA. No. 2504 of 2005. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the petition for condonation of delay. (LA. No. 2504 of 2005) stands disposed of. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and Award dated 30.5.2005 passed by the Commissioner in W.C. Case No. 21 of 2001, whereby a sum of Rs. 2,30,212.50 has been awarded on account of death of Arjun Ram, driver. 3. It has been disputed that Arjun Ram while driving the truck during the course of employment, received a severe heart attack resulting in this death. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation in case of death of workman in course of employment unless he suffers physical injury. 5. We are not agreeable to accept the contention of the appellant. Admittedly, when a workman duly covered by the policy, died in course of employment, the Insurance Company cannot be ex...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Bagaria Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Jhar67; [2006(2)JCR109(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This application was preferred by petitioner against the demand made vide order dated 6th October 2004 in Certificate Case No. 3 (Forest) 82-83.2. Having noticed the submissions made by the parties, following order was passed by this Court on 3rd January, 2006:The petitioner has challenged Certificate Case No. 3 (Forest)/82-83, pending in the Court of District Certificate Officer, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa on the ground that the authority has no jurisdiction to re-open the case which was closed on 19th/20th June, 1995.Learned Counsel for the State relied on Section 63 of the Bihar Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter to be referred as the P.D.R. Act) to suggest that the authority is empowered to re-open and review its order, but such submission has been opposed by the counsel for the petitioner on the ground that no petition for review was filed.In the circumstances, counsel for the State is allowed three weeks' time to file affidavit encl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »