Jharkhand Court February 2006 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.
Gunendra Nath Mistri Vs. Chairman-cum-managing Director Bccl and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-02-2006
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR414(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the parties.2. In the instant application the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents to provide employment to his daughter in lieu of the land acquired by the respondents and in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties at the time of acquisition of land.3. The admitted facts are that the Government acquired certain land of the petitioner for the purpose of the respondents-Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (in short BCCL). At the time of acquisition of land, it was agreed into, inter alia, that employment should be provided to the land loosers. The contention of the petitioner is that till date employment has not been provided although compensation has already been paid. The stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that a policy decision has been taken by the Coal India Ltd., holding company of M/s. BCCL that henceforth no employment shall be provided to any individual for acquisition of his land. It is further stated that respondent...
Employers in Relation to the Management of Dhansar Colliery of Kusunda ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-02-2006
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR416(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant. It challenged the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 81 of 1998. The award was as follows :Accordingly the concerned workman must be reinstated to his service. However, after reinstatement he may be directed to submit his Overman certificate if the. Bye-laws to that effect has already been amended in view of the Gazette Notification referred to above. In the result, the following Award is rendered :The action of the management of Dhansar Colliery under Kusunda Area of BCCL by stopping Shri Kishore Kumar, Sr. Overman from his work since 22.3.1996 is not justified. Consequently, the concerned workman is entitled to get reinstatement with full back wages from the date of his adoption of work to the date of his reinstatement with other consequential benefits.2. The learned Single Judge, holding that the scope of interference with the findings of facts arrived at on the basis of the materials on recor...
S.K. Tekriwal Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-02-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Jhar48; 2006(2)ARBLR318(Jhar); [2006(1)JCR420(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 petitioner has prayed for appointment of Arbitrator for settlement of dispute and claim of the petitioner for the work undertaken in the District of Godda for construction of rural road including bridge and culverts etc.2. Petitioner's case is that after completion of the formalities as required under the advertisement, a contract agreement was executed and signed on 19.3.1997 between the parties for the construction of rural road including bridge and culverts in Boarijore Block of Godda. After execution of the agreement petitioner said to have utilized all adequate resources as such manpower, Plant and equipment and necessary infrastructural to ensure that the work was continued in full swing so as to complete the entire work within the fixed time. It is contended that the sites of the work were handed over to then petitioner on 12.5.1997 and the work was commenced on 24.5.1997...
Amit Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-02-2006
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR419(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon respondents to absorb them on the post of reporters in Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha and also for a direction to the respondents not to make any appointment pursuant to the advertisement published in the Newspaper dated 9.6.2005.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass :In the year 2002 petitioners were appointed on the post of reporters on contractual basis after they were declared successful in the examination conducted by the respondents. Petitioners joined on different dates in the month of February 2002. Petitioners' services were time to time extended by different orders passed in between 2003 and 2005. Petitioners said to have been continued to work as reporters since the date of their joining. In the year 2004 petitioners made representation for their absorption on the post of reporters. But instead of absorbing the petitioners, posts have ...
Santosh Kumar Mahato and Ram Vinay Roy and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-02-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR271(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Since, in these two writ applications, common question of law and facts are involved, the same are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.3. First of all, I will take up WPS No. 5220 of 2005. In this case, the petitioner is posted as Assistant Teacher in Primary School in the district of Lohardaga and he joined as such on 27.8.2000. In the year 2005, an advertisement was issued by respondent No. 3 under the direction of respondent No. 2, the Secretary, Higher Education, Govt. of Jharkhand being Advertisement No. 4 of 2005, which was published in the newspaper on 26.8.2005 by respondent No. 3, the Public Service Commission for appointment of teachers in secondary schools. As per the Advertisement, all persons who completed five years' teaching experience as on 1.1.2005 were eligible to apply for the said post. The petitioner's case is that because of the condition of live years' experience put in the ad...
Suresh Prasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR422(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard. 2. Petitioner had filed writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5189 of 2004, for quashing his dismissal order No. 1039/ESH/18 BN Dismiss/2004/1745-1900 dated 6.2.2004 passed by Commandant 18 Battalion, Panisagar, Tripura. The objection to the territorial jurisdiction was raised by the counsel for the respondents. Petitioner submitted that his appeal is pending. In the facts and circumstances, this Court was not inclined to issue any specific direction. (Annexure I).3. Again he has challenged the same order dated 6.2.2004 in this writ petition on merits. One of the ground of challenging the said order is that his appeal has not been disposed of. By filing a supplementary affidavit, petitioner has also challenged the order dated 28.4.2005, passed by D.I.G./ P.S.O. (Annexure 6) rejecting his appeal/ application.4. Petitioner's case is that he overstayed the leave of two month, by six months as he was suffering from Lumbo Sciatica Syndrome. Relying on Rule 22 of the Bo...
Nandkeshwar Ram and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR424(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. In both the writ petitions as common questions of law are involved and many of the facts are common, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. All the petitioners have challenged the impugned Letter No. 1265 dated 30th April, 2004, their respective show cause notices, all dated 5th May, 2004 and the orders, contained in Letter Nos. 09, 10 and 12, all dated 26th May, 2004.By the impugned Letter No. 1265 dated 30th April, 2004 the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh, informed that the petitioners and others have been illegally appointed in pursuance of a decision of the Establishment Committee dated 25th September, 1985 and thereby directed the divisional Forest Officers, Koderma Forest Division and State Training Division, Koderma, to ensure that the services of the petitioners and others are terminated. By show cause notices, all dated 5th May, 2004, it was alleged that the petitioners were appointed witho...
Nand Kumar Ram and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR65(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to add State Advisory Committee and Central Government as party respondent.2. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. M.K. Laik, Sr. Standing Counsel for the State of Jharkhand and learned counsel for the State of Bihar.3. In this writ petition, the petitioners who are the Assistant Engineers, seek a direction upon the respondents particularly the respondent No. 2, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Road Construction Department, Ranchi to clear the back log promotional vacancies of reserved category in the cadre of Executive Engineers (belonging to the SC/ST candidates) by way of giving regular promotion to the Assistant Engineers who are working in the Road Construction Department. Further a direction has been sought directing the respondent No. 6, the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar to forward the backlog vacancies of the post of the Executive Engineers available to ...
Bishwanath Ram and Besh Lal Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR394(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. Both the cases relate to allocation of State under Section 72 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000. It appears that the Advisory Committee constituted under Section 75 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, has recommended the names of the petitioners for allocating them the State of Bihar, though, they opted for the successor State of Jharkhand. Against such recommendation made by final tentative list of allocation, the petitioners stated to have filed objection petitions.2. In both the cases, no order has been issued by the Central Government under Section 72(2) of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000.3. In the facts and circumstances, the cases being pre-matured, this Court is not inclined to give any finding. The Central Government is required to issue notification of final allocation under Section 72(2) of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, in accordance with law, taking into consideration the objection, if any, preferred by the petitioners.4. Both the...
Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR326(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner prays for quashing the entire certificate proceeding being Certificate Case No. 140/2005 pending before the Certificate Officer, Hazaribagh.3. Petitioner's case is that a certificate case was initiated against his father for the recovery of certain stamp duty in respect of sale transaction. On being noticed, the petitioner filed show cause taking various pleas i.e. the proceeding is barred by limitation, the proceeding was initiated against a dead person and denial of the liability.4. Admittedly no final order has been passed by the Certificate Officer. In that view of the matter I do not find any reason to quash the entire certificate proceeding. However, the Certificate Officer, Hazaribagh is directed to consider all the points taken by the petitioner in the show cause and dispose of the certificate case by passing reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›