Jharkhand Court July 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.
Jai Prakash Narayan Singh and anr. Vs. Central Coalfields Limited and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-25-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR269(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. GM (P & IR)/Writ/KU-CH/32/3272 & 3273 dated 10.8.2005 whereby the representation of the petitioners have been rejected.2. Petitioners were in the service of the respondents. In the year 1995 they were subjected to departmental proceeding and they were dismissed from service by order dated 7.6.1996 and 22.6.1996. It further reveals that criminal cases were also instituted against the petitioner. In the said criminal case petitioners were acquitted by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Hazaribagh vide judgment dated 29.8.2002 passed in ST No. 178/99. Petitioners, thereafter, filed representation for their reinstatement, which has been rejected by the impugned order.3. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that petitioners have been acquitted in the criminal case on the self same allegation and for similar charges and are entitled for reinstatement in servic...
Sheikh Alam and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-25-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR121(Jhr)]
ORDERPermod Kohli, J.1. Vide Order dated 3 1st March, 2004, Accountant General was directed to inform the Court, whether the amount of Rs. 5,28,000/-, said to be paid by the State of Bihar to the State of Jharkhand, was deposited in the account of Government of Jharkhand.2. Accountant General has filed a detailed affidavit stating therein that no amount has been deposited in the account of State of Jharkhand. It is also revealed from the affidavit of the Accountant General that the Central Government had approved on expenditure of Rs. 1,21,15.200/- in principal, in favour of the combined State of Bihar for incurring expenditure under the scheme for Madarsas of unified State of Bihar. However, due to lack of fund, only a sum of Rs. 47.44,551/- was sanctioned during the year 1999-2000. as grants-in-aid. It is further revealed that alter reorganisation of State of Bihar and creation of State of Jharkhand. the Government of Bihar surrendered a sum of Rs. 5,27,947/- out of the said sanction...
Situ Ram Barai Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-24-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR415(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathiha, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.9.1997, passed by respondent No. 2 in Lohardaga Revenue Revision No. 64 of 1991 (Annexure-9), confirming the order dated 30.4.1991, passed by the Additional Collector, respondent No. 3 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 20/1989-90 (Annexure-8), whereby the appeal filed by respondent No. 5 was allowed and the order dated 25.8.1989, passed by respondent No. 4 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 30/1980-81 was set aside.2. According to the petitioner, the land of R.S. Plot No. 1174 appertaining to Khata No. 146, measuring in area 1.67 acres of village-Bethath, Thana-Lohardaga, now Kisko P.S., Thana No. 143, District-Ranchi, now Lohardaga was recorded in the Revisional Survey Record of Rights in the name of Rijha Oraon and Surja Oraon, who voluntarily and without receiving any consideration, surrendered the said land to the then landlords-Banshidhar Modi, Nagarmal Modi and Shri Sheo Narayan Modi, under registered deed dated 20.7.1934 ( Annexure-1). Afte...
ishwari Dutt Jha @ I.D. Jha Vs. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-24-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)BLJR273; [2006(4)JCR266(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. This is the third attempt of the petitioner before this Court for getting promotional relief.2. The petitioner had moved this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 950 of 1996 (R) praying therein for quashing of the order of punishment, which was imposed on him in a Departmental Proceeding. The said writ application was allowed by this Court by order dated 07/02/1997 and the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner was quashed on the ground that the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment on the petitioner for the charge for failure of duties though no such charge was framed against, him in the Departmental Proceeding. The learned Single Judge of this Court by the aforesaid order observed that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including promotion etc. if permissible under the law. A copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure-2 to this writ application.3. Thereafter the petitioner made representation for his promotion along...
Surendra Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-24-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)BLJR173; [2006(4)JCR268(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for direction to the Respondents to provide new pay scale with effect from 01/01/1996 in terms of the recommendation of the 5th Pay Revision Committee Report and to refix his retiral benefits in terms of the salary which the petitioner would get on account of the implementation of the new pay scale and also to regularize the services of the petitioner for the period from 05/10/1996 to 10/04/1997.2. As it appears that with regard to all the aforesaid claims, the petitioner had already submitted his representation before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna but no order on his representation was passed either rejecting or accepting the claim of the petitioner.3. In this view of the matter, this application is being disposed of by directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Land Reforms Department, Government of J...
Dr. Richa Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-24-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)BLJR338; [2006(4)JCR258(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents particularly respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the case of the petitioner for admission in the Post Graduate Course i.e. M.D./M.S. on the basis of the merit list.2. On 17.07.2006 the matter was heard and this Court passed the following order:Heard the counsel for the parties.In the counter affidavit filed by the Officer on Special Duty ,Jharkhand Combined Competitive Examination Board, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi , it is stated that they have acted strictly in terms of the direction of the Supreme Court and the schedule prescribed by the Supreme Court . From perusal o the schedule, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure B to the counter affidavit, it appears that the Supreme Court directed the second and last round, of counseling to be over by 26th May, 2006 and the last date of joining of the candidates on the allotted seats was fixed on 2n...
Md. Sahid Ansari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-24-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR119(Jhr)]
ORDERPermod Kohli, J.1. Petitioner's father late Suleman Ansari was a permanent employee and serving on the post of Driver in 1634-Pioneer COY (GREF). He died in harness on 31st of January, 2003. leaving behind family, consisting of the widow four adult sons and a daughter, who were dependent upon the deceased-employee. Widow of the deceased-employee informed respondents that the appointment be given to her son Sahid Ansari, petitioner, who is the one amongst four sons petitioner's mother was informed by letter dated 6th of March, 2003 to submit an application in the prescribed DD Form for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, requisite form was filled-up, receipt whereof is acknowledged by the Respondents in their communication dated 13th of August, 2003 while intimating the mother of the petitioner that the case for compassionate appointment of her son is under consideration and the whole process takes three to six months. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was rejected by the ...
Smt. Kaushalya Bhuiani Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-24-2006
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR138(Jhr)]
ORDERPermod Kohli, J.1. Petitioner was serving with respondent No. 1- Company and she has been stopped from attending the duty with effect from 4th February, 2002 on the ground that she has attained the age of superannuation on 11th February, 2001. According to respondents, the date of birth of the petitioner is 11th February, 1941, which fact is also disputed by her. Petitioner has placed reliance upon Form-B. wherein aeainst Column 10 i.e. the date of termination/leaving of employment is mentioned as 19th July, 2009. She has further referred to Annexure-2, which is the report of the Apex Medical Board wherein age of the petitioner was determined as 37 years, as on 19th July, 1988. Even reference is made to another document i.e., service excerpts, which also indicates the date of birth of the petitioner as 19th July, 1940, as per Medical Board. Even there is communication dated 27th December, 2000 on record, whereby the Personnel Manager, Jeenagora Colliery, has informed the Company f...
Baleshwar Prasad Vs. the State of Bihar,
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-21-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR213(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 23.01.1998 (Annexure-7) by which the petitioner who was an Assistant was dismissed from the service and also for quashing of the order dated 08.12.1998 (Annexure-9) passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 02/98 by which the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal.2. The facts in short are that the petitioner was working as Assistant under the District Cooperative Officer at Ranchi. He was suspended vide Order dated 07.02.1991 and thereafter, the chargesheet was issued against him stating five charges against him.3. The petitioner filed a detailed show-cause denying the charges made against him. It appears that the order of suspension of the petitioner was revoked pursuant to the order of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3756 of 1993 (R).4. The grievance of the petitioner is that after he submitted his detailed show-...
Ram Naresh Singh Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Bharat Re ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-21-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR391(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The Order dated 26.06.1992, contained in Annexure - 4 to the Writ Application, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro in B.S.E. Case No. 1 of 1991 has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ application whereby, the learned Labour Court dismissed the Complaint Petition filed by the petitioner purported to be under Section 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 holding that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the Complainant-Petitioner in view of the fact that the provisions of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and it was observed that the Complainant may raise an industrial dispute and get the same referred under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication.2. Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that against the filing of the Complaint under Section...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »