Jharkhand Court December 2007 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.
Parma Nand Pandit Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR309(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for implementation of part of the order, contained in Memo No. 2833 dated 19.7.2007 (Annexure-1), whereby the petitioner, who was holding the post of Superintending Engineer, has been transferred to the post of Technical Secretary to the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Ranchi, but was not allowed to join and the charge has not been handed over to him.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Chief Engineer of the Department in order to accommodate respondent No. 5 is putting unnecessary impediment and not accepting his joining, though the petitioner has given his joining of his transfer. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. During the pendency of this writ petition, the said transfer order was modified and the petitioner has been now transferred and posted as Director, Purchase and Transport Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand. By way of application for amendmen...
Ranchi Motor Fitness Centre Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR368(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Order, contained in letter No. 640/06-495 dated 10.7.2007 (Annexure-4), whereby the letter of authority issued in favour of the petitioner vide letter of authority No. 3 of 1991 dated 14.5.1991 has been cancelled.2. It has been submitted that the petitioner was given licence/letter of authority for establishing and authorizing testing station in terms of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules). After due consideration of the relevant aspects, letter of authority was issued in favour of the petitioner vide letter of authority No. 3 of 1991 dated 14.5.1991 for five years. It was further renewed up to 27.11.2008. It has been stated that one Motor Vehicle Inspector visited the office premises of the petitioner and submitted a report. Thereafter, a show cause notice was sent to the petitioner by letter dated 16.6.2006 asking to show cause as to why the licence/autho...
Alakh Niranjan Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation Through Its Chairman and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR1464
Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the adverse entries communicated to him vide Letter No. 420 dated 23.2.1993 (Annexure 5) and Letter No. 1639 dated 30.8.1993 (Annexure 6) with regard to 1991-92 and 1992-93 respectively. Both the entries are similar. They are as follows: This officer was incharge of procurement of lost materials for Bokaro 'B' Plant. It is now found that many items which were not stolen were reported as stolen and replacement procured against them. It is also found that the Corporation will not be able to recover money from Insurance. It is also seen that M/s. AIGAM who were paid Rs. 40 lakhs for preparation of a list of lost materials were not done so. There are many other irregularities. The case is being investigated. It is reported that the Corporation has suffered a loss of crores of rupees. I will grade this officer as 'Poor'.2. Mr. Saurav Arun, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the General Manager had no authority to re...
State of Jharkhand Vs. Karu Mahto and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-13-2007
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR387(Jhr)]
D.P. Singh, J.1. This appeal has been preferred the State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro against the judgment and award dated 23.8.2001 and 31.8.2001 passed by Land Acquisition Judge, Bokaro in L.A. Case No. 215/85.2. The respondent Karu Prasad Mahto and Others have been granted compensation for 25 decimals of land @ Rs. 300/- per decimal and 30% amount by way of soletium. The appellant was further directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- as the cost of compensation for construction of the house standing on the land said to be two pakka rooms. The memo of appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the learned lower Court has exceeded the jurisdiction by allowing compensation @ Rs. 300/- per decimal and further that cost of compensation of the house is exorbitant. However during argument, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted frankly that he does not want to controvert the amount of compensation as well as solatium awarded to the respondents. His main contention was...
Namo Narayan Dubey Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-13-2007
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR245(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.1.1998, awarding punishment of reduction in pay scale from Rs. 1400-2300/-to Rs. 1200-1800/-. It is further ordered that during suspension period he will not get anything further except the subsistence allowance though the suspension period will be counted for pensionary benefits. It is further ordered that Rs. 42,490/-, defalcated by the petitioner, will be realized from his leave salary and gratuity.2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a criminal case was also filed with regard to charge No. 1 for defalcation of Rs. 23,475.67 and with regard to charge No. 3 for defalcation of Rs. 1,000/-, but subsequently after a full dress trial, petitioner was acquitted on 21.2.2002. It is further submitted that regarding charge No. 2 the disciplinary authority said that though Rs. 6,440/- was ultimately deposited but there was a case of temporary defalcation. Regarding charge No. 4, the enquiry off...
Santosh Kumar Dubey, Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-13-2007
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR246(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. This writ petition was filed for a direction on the respondents to provide our employments to the petitioners against the acquisition of their three louses.2. Mr. Tiwary, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that when employment was not provided, they filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 3800 of 1995 (R), which was disposed of on 4.10.1996, in which the respondents said that they were ready to provide employment to the petitioners, if they vacate the houses and move to the alternative file. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to vacate the lands and premises and go to the alternative site and then pray for appointment with no objection certificates of other co-sharers and when such certificate is produced, respondent No. 1 was to provide employment. As per the said order, petitioners vacated the land but they have not been provided employment and therefore they had to file this writ petition. The office order dated 27.1...
Kandu Pahan Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-12-2007
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR365(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises oat of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 1343 of 1999(R) on 8.10.2002 of this court, whereby the wit petition of the appellant was dismissed affirming the revisional order passed by the Commissioner of South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi with the observation,On perusal of Annexure-3, the revisional order, it transpires that the learned Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, has considered the factual aspect, of the matter and also the legal aspect, particularly 3rd proviso of Section 71-A of the C.N.T. Act. The learned Commissioner has also considered the fact that two courts below have not considered the factum of construction of substantial structure on the land and, therefore, they have arrived on some erroneous consideration and this has been corrected by the learned Commissioner in the revisional order. In the decision reported in 1987 BLT (Rep) 303 (Pat) RB it has been held that the revision...
Sanjay Vishwakarma @ Sanjay Kumar and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-12-2007
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR1466; [2008(2)JCR388(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction on the respondents to consider the petitioners' candidature for regular appointment, who had been working on daily wage basis for several years. Petitioners have further prayed for a direction on the respondents to fill up the vacant sanctioned post in terms of the said advertisement.2. Petitioners' case is that the Petitioner No. 1 was engaged on daily wage basis as driver on 29th August, 1998. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were similarly engaged on daily wage basis on 1st December, 2001. Since the date of their engagement, they have been continuously working.3. An advertisement, being Advertisement No. 04-05/2001, was issued for appointment on different posts including the post of driver. The prescribed qualification for the post of driver was Class VIII pass and other eligibility was driving license.4. The petitioners, who possessed the required educational qualification and driving license and e...
Ram Naresh Prasad and Manikant Prasad Singh Vs. the Vice Chancellor, V ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-12-2007
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR374(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Petitioners have challenged the order dated 3.10.2002 passed by the Vice Chancellor (Annerxure 10/A) rejecting representation of the petitioners.3. Mr. Singh, appearing for the petitioners submitted the petitioners were regularized in compliance of the order this Court, and no against any vacancy created by promotion of two persons, and therefore the impugned order is bad.4. The relevant facts in short are as fellows. According to the petitioners, the then Vice Chancellor of Ranchi University constituted a committee for selecting class III and IV employees Petitioners were selected and started working since 1983. The select list was then sent to the University for approval which was approved but the Principal of the College was directed to make appointment from the penal 'Only against sanctioned post' (emphasis supplied). The posts were not sanctioned, there the petitioners filed C.W.J.C. No. 502 of 1991 (R) for direction to the respondent to sa...
Shanti Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-11-2007
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR111(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents (Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police, Dumka) to hand over the possession of the land to the petitioner which has been illegally and forcibly attached with the land acquired for the purpose of constructing a Police Station at Kathikund, Dumka. According to the petitioner, certain portion of lands of Plot Nos. 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242 and 243 were acquired for construction of Thana building in L.A. Case No. 11/62-63. The area of the acquired land was 1.44 Acres. But the remaining portion of the land, which was not acquired, has been also occupied forcibly for the purpose of the Police Station. The petitioner made complaint before the concerned authority. On the representation of the petitioner, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka directed the Anchal Office to take measurement through the Anchal Amin and to demarcate the said land. Two Anchal Amins we...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »