Jharkhand Court September 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.
Bihari UraIn Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR225(Jhr)]
ORDERPermod Kohli, J.1. Petitioner is the widow of late Ram Oraon, who was on work-charge establishment in the Road Construction Department, Ranchi, Road Circle. The deceased was engaged as a gang Mazdoor in the pay-scale of Rs. 155-190/- vide Memo No. 3164 dated 23rd of December, 1974 by the Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Ranchi Road Circle, Ranchi. The deceased-husband of the petitioner died on 8th of January, 1998. After his death, the G.P.F. and L.I.C. amounts have been paid to the petitioner. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction for payment of retiral benefits including Pension, Gratuity and Leave encashment etc.2. In the counter-affidavit filed by the State-Respondents, it is stated that initially petitioner was engaged as a Mazdoor on temporary basis and thereafter brought on the work-charge establishment. It is, accordingly stated that petitioner is not entitled to the pensionary benefits. Issue involved in this writ application is sq...
Sudama Singh and Vijoy Shankar Ojha @ Bishnu Ojha Vs. the State of Bih ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-13-2006
Reported in: [2007(2)JCR36(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The appellant Sudama Singh was charged with, tried and convicted for the offence under Sections 364 of the Indian Penal Code, while appellant Vijoy Shankar Ojha @ Bishnu Ojha was charged with, tried and convicted for the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa who vide his judgment dated 14th January 2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 135 of 1997 has sentenced the appellant Sudama Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, while sentencing the other appellant Vijoy Shankar Ojha @ Bishnu Ojha to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code who was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five (5) years for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence was imposed on him under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code.The case relates to th...
Birendra Kumar Thakur Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-13-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR513(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioner filed this writ petition for direction on the respondents to promote him to the post of Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories (Productivity)(DCIF (P) for short) as he has been performing all the duties of such post and was only eligible person having requisite qualification for such post, which was also lying vacant for a long time.2. Mr. B.P. Pandey, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is in service for 25 years but he has not been granted his due promotion. He submitted that petitioner is B.Sc. (Engg.) Production. Relying on certain orders of Patna High Court, he submitted that though the said orders were passed in the matters of transfer but this Court observed that Government may be well advised to give posting befitting academic qualification. He further submitted that the post of DCIF (P) has been renamed as 'Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Dumka' and petitioner being the only person having the qualificat...
Birendra Kumar Thakur Vs. the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)BLJR168
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioner filed this writ petition for direction on the respondents to promote him to the post of Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories (Productivity) (DCIF (P) for short) as he has been performing all the duties of such post and was only eligible person having requisite qualification for such post, which was also lying vacant for a long time.2. Mr. B.P. Pandey, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is in service for 25 years but he has not been granted his due promotion. He submitted that petitioner is B.Sc. (Engg.) Production. Relying on certain orders of Patna High Court, he submitted that though the said orders were passed in the matters of transfer but this Court observed that Government may be well advised to give posting befitting academic qualification. He further submitted that the post of DCIF (P) has been renamed as 'Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Dumka' and petitioner being the only person having the qualifica...
Md. Israil and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-13-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR525(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay and D.P. Singh, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against the judigment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.7.2001 passed in Sessions, Trial No. 42/87, whereby and whereunder' the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla held the appellants guilty under, Section 302/34, IPC and sentenced them to serve RI for life.2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the informant Madan Mohan Mishra, ASI of Bishunpur P.S. District Ranchi got information that some employees of Geological Survey Camp, organized in Bishunpur area, have caused death of a female in village Gora Pahar Toll. Sri Mishra after recording this information in the SD Entry No. 33 dated 3.6.1984, started for the place of occurrence. According to him, he learnt from the villager Gendra Asur, PW 6 that one month ago while he was ploughing his field, two male persons including an employee of Geological Survey Camp went towards the camp along with one female between 6-7 p.m. According to this witness, ...
Gorakh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-12-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR514(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.4.1997, passed by respondent No. 2 inflicting punishment. It has been held in this order that petitioner was absent from 6.6.1990 to 4.11.1990 unauthorizedly and therefore the said period was treated as unauthorized absence and no salary etc. was to be paid for the said period. However, the said period was not to be treated as break in service for the purpose of pension etc. The period from 5.11.1990 to 22.11.1990 was adjusted against the earned leave.2. Though the report of the Enquiry Officer has not been annexed by the petitioner, a copy has been produced by Mr. R.S.P. Sinha, which has been kept on record. From perusal of the same, it appears that petitioner was given opportunity and he filed his show cause. He was found guilty of the first charge namely disobeying the orders of transfer. With regard to unauthorized absence from 5.11.1990 to 22.11.1990 on account of his transfer the Enquiry Officer found that the recomm...
Rakesh Ranjan Sinha and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-12-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR515(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioners have challenged the orders No. 1320, 1319 and 1318, dated 31.12.1997, issued by respondent No. 5, whereby and whereunder they have been dismissed from service and have claimed consequential reliefs.2. The relevant facts, in short are as follows. Petitioners were posted as Junior Engineers at Galudih right Canal Division No. 2, Musabani, District, East Singhbhum at the relevant time. In the light of report submitted by the flying squad Division No. 2, petitioners were put under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated against them. The main charge was of deliberately making excess payment to the tune of Rs. 16,23,124/- to the contractor. The Enquiry Officer exonerated the' petitioners in his report dated 18.4.1996. Petitioners had filed writ petitions challenging the order of suspension but after it was revoked they prayed for a direction for passing appropriate order on the said enquiry report. The said writ petitions were disposed of on 3....
Lal Phanindra Nath Sahdeo Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-12-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR517(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard.Petitioner has challenged the orders dated 23.9.1997 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi (respondent No. 2) dismissing his revisions-S.A.R. Rev. Nos. 29 and 30 of 1992 (Annexures-6 and 6-A); and the orders dated 20.2.1992 and 28.2.1992 passed by the Additional Collector, Gumla respondent No. 2 in S.A.R. Appeal Nos. 16-R-15 and 17-R-15 of 1989-90 Annexures-5 and 5-A whereby the order dated 11.7.1989 passed by the D.C.L.R.-cum-Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Gumla (respondent No. 4) in S.A.R. Case Nos. 85 and 86/1988-89 was set aside.2. S.A.R. Case No. 85/188-89 was registered on the application dated 20.9.1988 for restoration of 25 decimals of land filed by Augustus Barwa Oraon (respondent No. 5) and S.A.R. Case No. 86/1988-89 was registered on the application dated 26.10.1988 filed by Habartus Tigga (respondent No. 6), both members of Schedule Tribe, for restoration of 23 decimals of land (Plot No. 264. Khata Nos. 2/2 and ...
The Management of Bakaro Steel Plant (Steel Authority of India Ltd.) V ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-12-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR511(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the Award dated 26.9.2000 pronounced on 10.7.2001 passed by respondent No. 1 in Reference Case No. 6 of 1994 directing the petitioner to reinstate respondent No. 2 with full back wages.2. The following dispute was referred by notification dated 24.1.1994. Whether the termination of services of Shri Hawaldar Sharma, Rigger, Staff No. 293910 Sintring Plant (O), Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City is proper? If not, whether he should be reinstated on the job or/and compensation be paid?'3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the letter of appointment, there was clear stipulation that respondent No. 2 will be governed by the standing orders. The workman absented from 20.1.1986 without any information to the management. Accordingly the management had to issue a registered letter/notice dated 5.2.1986 asking respondent No. 2 to report by 20.2.1986. But neither he reported on duty nor sent any reply. Accordingly by...
Rajnath Oraon Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-12-2006
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR572(Jhr)]
1. The sole appellant, Rajnath Oraon has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo RI for life by judgment dated 22.6.2001 in Sessions Trial No. 561 of 1998 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Pamalau at Daltonganj.2. In short the prosecution case is that on 15.4.1998 at about 8 p.m. while the informant Suresh Oraon and his father Baijnath Oraon (the deceased) were taking their dinner in their house, the maternal grand father of the informant Deonarain Oraon (PW 3) came there and he also took dinner. After taking their dinner, the father of the informant asked him to go for sleep and he himself went out along with the maternal grand father of the informant to see him of. After a while the maternal grand father of the informant came back and informed the informant that his father has been killed and thereafter the family members rushed to the place of occurrence where they saw that Baijnath Oraon was lying in injured co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »