Jharkhand Court April 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.
Umesh Prasad Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR208(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 4th August, 2005, whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order of transfer dated 29th June, 2005, whereby, the appellant has been transferred to Rural Development (Special Circle), Hazaribagh. 2. It appears that after re-organization of the State, the appellant continued to function under successor State of Bihar. His services were placed under the State of Jharkhand on 5th October, 2004. He joined the State of Jharkhand, whereinafter, he was posted as Assistant Engineer, Rural Development (Special Division), Dhanbad, by Notification dated 16th November, 2004. The appellant joined at Dhanbad but after 7 to 8 months, he was transferred by the impugned Notification dated 29th 3une, 2005 from Dhanbad to Rural Development (Special Circle), Hazaribagh. 3. The main plea, as was taken by the appellant in the writ petition, was that he was transferred on the...
Narayan Ram and Rajiv Kumar Suri and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and o ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR218(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. Petitioner, Narayan Ram has preferred the writ petition [W.P.(S) 3782 of 2005] against the joint Notification Nos. 957/M, 958/M, 959/M, 963/M, 964/M & 978/M dated 10th June, 2005 and the office order contained in Memo No. 857/M dated 17th June,2005, so far it relates to the petitioner and contesting 6th to 10th respondents. By the aforesaid notification dated 10th June,2005, 6th to 10th respondents, who are Geologists, were transferred and posted as Assistant Mining Officers at different places. The petitioner, who holds the substantive post of Mining Inspector and was functioning as In charge Assistant Mining Officer, has been sent back to his substantive post, because of the aforesaid postings. Further prayer has been made by the petitioner, Narayan Ram, to direct the respondents to grant him regular promotion to the post of Assistant Mining Officer from due date and till such promotion is granted, to allow him to continue as In charge Assistant Mining Of...
Deo Lakhan Paswan Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR136(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard.2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 12.8.1999 taking cognizance for the offence under Sections 500, 504 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.3. It appears that the Complaint Case No. 391 of 1999 was lodged before the S.D.J.M. Daltonganj by the Complainant (respondent No. 2) against the petitioner alleging therein that he not only abused the complainant but also assaulted by throwing Paper Weight causing injuries on his leg. Learned S.D.J.M., on the basis? of statements made in the complaint petition as well as from the statements made by the witnesses examined during the enquiry under Section 202, Cr PC took cognizance against the petitioner and prima facie case was made out against the petitioner for commission of the offence under Sections 500, 504 and 323 of the IPC.4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the prosecution of the petitioner was mala fide as he h...
State of Jharkhand Vs. Kauleshwar Prasad and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR233(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. In both the appeals as common questions of law are involved, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Respondent No. 1/writ petitioner Kauleshwar Prasad of L.P.A. No. 488 of 2004 had preferred the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 648 of 2002 for a direction on the respondents to count the services, rendered by him as Extra Clerk for the period from 16th December, 1958 to 10th February, 1981, for the purposes of granting him the pensionery as well as other retiral benefits. Further prayer was made to direct the respondent (appellant herein) to pay him the salary for period from 2nd February, 1991 to 17th February, 1992.Respondent No. 1/writ petitioner Girija Nand Prasad of L.P.A. No. 512 of 2004 had preferred a separate writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4406 of 2002 for a direction on the respondents to consider the period of service, rendered by him as Extra Clerk from March, 1952 to 28th November, 1972, for the purposes of...
Bijendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR238(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioner prayed before the authorities to count his services rendered as Officiating Sub-Inspector of Police w.e.f. 11th June, 1976, but it was rejected by Deputy Inspector General of Police (Hqrs.) Jharkhand, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as the D.I.G. Police (Hqrs.), Jharkhand, Ranchi), by letter No. 984 dated 2nd May. 2003. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner in this case.2. According to the petitioner, he is entitled for seniority as a Sub-Inspector of Police w.e.f. 11th June, 1976 in the light of judgment rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1990 SC 1970. According to him, the period of officiating service can be counted in certain cases, as held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, paragraph 44 (b) of which is quoted hereunder:(b) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but th...
Ganesh Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR156]; [2006(2)JCR489(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged the order, contained in letter No. 64, dated 31st December, 2002 issued by the 3rd respondent, Headmaster, High School, Peterwar, District-Bokaro. whereby and whereunder, giving reference to letter No. 408, dated 18th December, 2002, issued by the District Education Officer, Bokaro, he has informed the petitioner that he, having completed 40 years of service, has retired from his service. The petitioner has also assailed the said letter No. 408, dated 18th December, 2002, issued by the District Education Officer, Bokaro, whereby, it was informed that there being no provision to allow a person to continue beyond 40 of service, the petitioner would retire and the excess amount, received by him by continuing in service beyond the said period, be recovered from his gratuity.2. In a similar case of Pranadhar Prasad v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in , a Bench of this Court held that a Government ...
Nemdhari Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the Secretary, Deptt. o ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR455(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The appellant was appointed on 1st July, 1976 under the State of Bihar and was posted as Group Officer, Special Branch, Chaibasa (within the territory of Jharkhand) since 10th May. 1997. After reorganisation of the State, he continued to hold the said post under the State of Jharkhand.2. The age of superannuation was 58 years for employees of State of Bihar prescribed under Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code, 1952. The said Code was adopted by the State of Jharkhand by Notification No. 3/M-7-0/2001-3821/Ranchi dated 19th October, 2001 and was subsequently amended by Resolution No. 7/BBP-56/2002-Ka-5826/Ranchi dated 26th October. 2004. Age of superannuation was enhanced from 58 to 60 years. On the other hand, it continued to be 58 years in the successor State of Bihar till successor State of Bihar amended Rule 73 and enhanced the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years by Resolution No. 3A-7-Maha-01/2005-1500 B(2) dated 23rd March, 2005.3. The date of birt...
Brajesh Kumar Gupta and ors. and Paras Ram Tiwari Vs. the Chairman, Ke ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR150]; [2006(2)JCR460(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The petitioners in both the writ applications are aggrieved by the common order dated 24.1.2005 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in O.A. Nos. 308/04 & 310/04 whereby the learned Tribunal while quashing the impugned order of their termination from the post of Principal has given liberty to the respondents to take action in accordance with law and procedure, if deemed appropriate. The petitioners have prayed for a direction to the learned Central Administrative Tribunal to decide their case on merit by holding that they are the direct recruits on the post of Principal in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan appointed by the respondents on substantive basis in accordance with all the prescribed procedure and rules and by holding written examination and interview on all India basis and were subsequently regularized on the said posts against the vacancy. The petitioners, admittedly, on their posting have been working as Prin...
Vishwa Mohan Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR240(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhya, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order, contained in Notification No. 3289 dated 28th June, 2005, whereby and where under, he has been transferred from Nimdih to Gumla.2. The main plea taken to challenge the order is to accommodate the respondents, the order of transfer has been issued, transferring the petitioner from Nimdih within three months.3. It appears that the petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer, R.E.O. Sub-Division, Nimdih by Notification No. 3639 dated 26th June, 2004, which was unsuccessfully challenged by 7th respondent, in W.P. (S) No. 2433 of 2004. It was dismissed on 16th December, 2005 and order was affirmed upto Supreme Court.Subsequently, in place of 8th respondent, the petitioner was posted by Notification No. 7192 dated 13th December, 2004, but there he had not joined. The 7th respondent also challenged the said order unsuccessfully in W.P. (S) No. 6776 of 2004. Thus, a dispute of transfer and posting was there between the parties.4....
Sant Kumar Sahu and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR274(Jhr)]
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. All the four petitioner have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the entire criminal proceedings including the order impugned dated 29.8.2003, passed in Cr. Rev. No. 9 of 2001 arising out of Dumri P.S. Case No. 51 of 1997, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2 of 1998 as also setting aside the order impugned passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Gumla on 25.1.2001 whereby the prayer of the petitioners was rejected.2. It was alleged in the written complaint of the informant presented before the Officer-in-Charge of Dumri P.S that several accused persons including the petitioners had not executed their work of construction done of various Check Dams properly which were authorized to them and, accordingly, they defalcated the Government exchequer. On the basis of written report Dumri P.S. Case No. 51 of 1997 was instituted under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code as against t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »