Jharkhand Court October 2007 Judgments
P.K. Sarkar Vs. the Secretary-cum-chairman, Board of Trustee, Ministry ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-31-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR471(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the transfer order dated 9.4.07 as well as the relieving order dated 14.4.07 issued by the Commissioner, C.M.P.F. Dhanbad. The petitioner's case is that he was posted as Programme Analyst at the Head Quarters of C.M.P.F Office, Dhanbad. In the year 2000 he was transferred to Nagpur to the post of Programme Analyst, though there was no post at Nagpur. However, he had joined Nagpur Office. After a few months he was again transferred to Dhanbad. The petitioner was again transferred to the Office of the Joint Commissioner, Division-II, Nagpur on the ground of administrative exigency by the order dated 5.2.07, but that order was subsequently cancelled by the Commissioner. By the impugned order dated 9.4.07, the petitioner has been transferred as Programme Analyst to the Regional Office, Godavarikhani, District- Karimnagar (A.P.).2. The petitioner has assailed the impugned transfer order on the following grounds...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeshwar Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-24-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR407(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged his transfer order, being Notification dated 5th September, 2007 (Annexure-3), on two grounds; firstly that he has been transferred within a short span of slightly over three months and secondly that the transfer order is vitiated by mala fide.2. By the impugned order, the petitioner, who was holding the post of Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chatra, has been transferred to the post of Deputy Secretary, Canibet (Vigilance) Department, Government of Jharkhand.3. Petitioner's case is that earlier he was transferred to Chatra as Additional Collector. He was remained there fill April, 2007. By Notification dated 24th April, 2007, the petitioner was posted as Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, zila Parishad, Chotra. How, a? the instance of a Member of Parliament of the Ruling Alliance, the petitioner has been transferred within a short period...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap Narayan Gope, Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-24-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1550; [2008(1)JCR491(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. In all the three writ applications common question is involved and, as such, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner in WPS No. 3461 of 2007 namely Pratap Narayan Gope has prayed for quashing of the notification contained in memo No. 2389 dated 22/06/2007 whereby the respondent No. 6 Tribhuwan Nath Upadhyay was asked to function as Public Prosecutor in the Civil Court, jamshedpur, which, which, according to the petitioner, is contrary to the provisions of Sections 24 and 25 of Cr. P.C as well as the law laid down by Patna High Court in the case of 'Jititlhari Roy and Ors. v. State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary and Ors. reported in 1994 (2) P.L.J.R, 558' wherein it has been held that no Assistant Public Prosecutor can be appointed on the post of Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor unless he resigns from his original post on which he was appointed by the State Government. According to the p...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Ramanathan, Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer, Exide ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-19-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR167(Jhr)]
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against them including the order dated 5.4.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in C.P. Case No. 1388/05 whereby and where-under cognizance of the offence has been taken under Section 406/420 read with 120B, IPC against the petitioners now pending in the Court of Shri Sanjay Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.2. The brief fact of the case as narrated in the Complaint Petition filed by the O.P. No. 2 was that he was the C & F agent for South Bihar based at Ranchi of the Standard Batteries Limited (S.B.L. in short). He had paid Rs. 10 lakhs as Security deposit to S.B.L. by D.D. No. 01726/323/ 457 dated 28.7.1995 and D.D. No. 02195/ 323/457/95 dated 28.8.1995 as confirmed by the letters dated 28.7.1995 and 28.8.1995 of the accused No. 1 D.K. Verma, Former Branch Manager of S.B.L., Ranchi on behalf of S.B.L. Money receipts w...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Prasad Gupta Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR655(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. The question requires to be determined in this case by the Full Court is whether the amount, if any, paid in excess to the employee while in service due to mistake, fault or any misrepresentation, can be recovered from the employee after retirement from the Pension or Gratuity of the Government employee.2. The brief facts of the case could be summarized as follows:(i) Laxman Prasad Gupta, the petitioner, herein, was appointed as Health Worker on 11.04.1968.(ii) The first Time Bound Promotion was given to the petitioner in the year 1981. Subsequently he got Second Time Bound Promotion in the year 1993.(iii) The petitions retired from the service on 30.09.2001. At the time of retirement, his last pay drawn was Rs. 5702/- per month.(iv) After retirement, pension papers of the petitioner was sent to the Accountant General for the finalization of the pension and other retrial benefits.(v) The Accountant General returned the pension papers to the authority with a...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Normi Topno Vs. the State of Jharkhand Through Its Secretary, Dep ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR289; [2008(1)JCR381(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. Smt. Normi Topno, on being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, upholding the action of recovery of the excess payment from her pension and gratuity, has filed this letters patent appeal.2. The appellant got retired from service on 30.09.1999 as A.N.M from Primary Health Centre, Boarijor, Godda. Thereupon her pension papers were sent to the Accountant General. On scrutiny, the Accountant General found that she was wrongly granted Time Bound Promotion. Therefore, the Accountant General returned the papers for clarification. The Department scrutinized the papers and found that the appellant was wrongly given Time Bound Promotion. Therefore, pension papers were forwarded to the Accountant General for recovery of Rs. 50,456/-, the excess amount paid to her from her pension/Gratuity. Challenging the said action of the authorities, Smt. Normi Topno filed a writ petition in W.P.(S) No. 2668 of 2003 before the learned Single Judge. The same was dismi...
Tag this Judgment!Hind Mazdoor Sabha Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR142(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. This writ application has been filed by way of public interest litigation. From the averments made in the writ petition, it is clear that the writ petition has been filed by targeting a particular person, i.e. Managing Director of Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation alleging therein that his substantial post is of Secretary, Road Construction Department, Jharkhand but he is continuing to hold the charge of the Managing Director of Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation, which was given to him. in the year 2004 as stop gap arrangement and even after completion of three years he is continuing on the said post and all sorts of irregularities are being committed by him.3. Mrs. Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of 'Neetu v. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in AIR 2007 SC 258' in order to show that for entertainment of a public interest...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Prasad Vs. Director-cum-chairman, D.P.C., National Institute ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR578(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 27.1.2001 passed in CWJC Mo. 228/99R whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the claim of the appellant-writ petitioner for promotion to the higher post with retrospective effect was not justified. For better appreciation the impugned order/judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.K. Das, learned Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3.This case relates to petitioner's promotion to the post of Superintendent. Although the petitioner was given promotion to the higher post but he was not satisfied and in the aforesaid background; the petitioner preferred representation for his promotion from retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 18th October, 1996 which was rejected vide impugned order dated 30th December, 1998, which is under challenge.Respondents, in their counter affidavit have taken plea that Shri K.N. Mishra, ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Jharkhand and ors. Vs. Padmalochan Kalindi and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR279; [2008(1)JCR5(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The appellants-State of Jharkhand and others have preferred this appeal against the order dated 23.8.06 passed in W.P(S) No. 2814/06. By the said order, the learned Single Judge has quashed the order dated 2.9.97 passed by the Accountant General (A&E;) II, Bihar, Patna as well as the letter dated 3.1.05 issued by the Block Development Officer, Chandan Keyari, Bokaro whereby a sum of Rs. 2,24,166.10 was sought to be recovered, as service dues, from the petitioner-1st respondent after more than a decade of his retirement.2. While hearing the said appeal, the Division Bench was informed that some matter with the similar issue is pending before the Full Bench, by order dated 12.3.07, this L.P.A was also directed to be placed before the Full Bench along with L.P.A No. 146/06. That is how this appear has been placed before this Bench.3. The 1st respondent-Padamalochan Kalindi was the writ petitioner. He retired from the Government Service in August 1989, as Jan Sew...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Jhar99; [2008(1)JCR149(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard Mr. Mittal, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rajesh Shankar, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The only point which has been argued and to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the impugned bills raised by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board is barred under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003?3. This point was raised by the appellant before the writ Court but the learned single Judge has rejected the said plea of the appellant and has answered the said question in negative.4. Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 speaks about disconnection of supply in default of payment and it reads as under:56. Disconnection of supply in default of payment--(1) Where any person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity due from him to a licensee or the generating company in respect of supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of electricity to him, the licensee or the generating comp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »