Jharkhand Court January 2008 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.
Rahmati Khatoon Vs. State of Jharkhand Through the Registrar Co-operat ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR309a(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties finally.2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents to pay the maturity value of Laxmi Deposit Scheme amounting to Rs. 27,125.00/-under Deposit Receipt No. 005060 matured on 15.9.2000 with the respondent bank with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of maturity till the date of payment.3. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the order passed on 8.8.2003 in WP(C) No. 5552 of 2002 Ashraf Ali etc.4. Mr. M.K. Roy, appearing for the respondent-Bank, submitted that when the said order was passed in the case of Ashraf Ali (supra), only the licence to carry on Banking business was cancelled but thereafter the Bank has gone under liquidation and the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau has been appointed as official liquidator. In support of his contention, he produced a copy of the notification issued by the office of the Registrar. Co-operative Societies. Jharkhand, Ranchi dated 18.7.2005. He las...
Jagdish Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR308(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioner's grievance is that though he retired on 31.1.1999 while working as Headmaster in Government Middle School, Hussainabad, Palamau, but his dues salary, earned leave and two annual increments for the year 1996-97 after refixation of pension have been withheld for no fault on his part.2. It is submitted by Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that in spite of repeated requests, the said dues have not been paid to the petitioner saying that no funds are available.3. Mr. R.R. Mishra learned G.P. II. appearing for the respondents, submitted that in spite of communication to the respondents concerned, he has received no instructions and, therefore, he is not in a position to either accept or controvert the averments made in the writ petition. However, he submitted that if the petitioner makes a fresh representation to the competent Authority, the matter will be looked into.4. In the circumstances, the petitioner is given liberty t...
Dr. Kameshwar Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR628(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioner, who has now retired during the pendency of this writ application on 31.12.2007 as Associate Professor from Patliputra Medical College, Dhanbad, has filed this writ application for the following reliefs:(i) For commanding upon the respondents to count the period of the petitioner from 10.3.1976 to 15.12.1988 towards teaching experience as 'tutor' and with effect from 16.12.1988 as Assistant Professor for all purposes as per official letter No. 678(I) dated 9.7.1982 read with resolution of the Government dated 6.12.1990 as contained in Memo No. 17/A1-063/881086 (17) inasmuch as admittedly the petitioner has been working on the post of non-tenure resident with effect from 10.3.1976.(ii) For a direction commanding upon the respondents to give all consequential benefits to the petitioner for promotion to next higher post of Associate Professor in Patliputra Medical College, Dhanbad.2.1 By filing supplementary affidavit in the year 2003 it...
Palindra Mehra Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR626(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties.The petitioner is posted as Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society of the State of Jharkhand. His grievance is that by issue of Annexure-10 dated 13th July 2002, several other persons, who are junior to the petitioner, have been given senior selection grade but for no thyme and reason the petitioner has not been provided with such benefit of senior selection grade in spite of the fact that he is otherwise eligible for the said senior selection grade.2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar in which it is stated that since vigilance clearance has not been received with regard to the petitioner, the matter for promotion of the petitioner to the senior selection grade could not proceed. In spite of several adjournments the State of Jharkhand has not come forward with any counter affidavit.3. This writ application is of the year 2002 and since then six years has already been passed and, therefore with...
Nageshwar Bhuiya Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR618(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties finally.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the pension has been paid to the petitioner upto December, 2006 on the basis of N.C.W.A. VII whereas from 1st June, 2004 to December, 2006, he is entitled to arrears of revised pension as per N.C.W.A. VII. It is further submitted that from January, 2007, no pension has been paid to the petitioner. It is admitted that other amounts have been paid.3. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Central Coalfields Limited is not clear about the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner.4. In the circumstances, petitioner is given liberty to make representation before the Project Officer, C.C.L. Kedla U/G Project, Kedla, District Hazaribagh (respondent No. 4) with regard to the said claim. If he finds that the said claim is tenable, and petitioner complies with the formalities, if any, he will send the relevant paper (s) to the office of the Regional C.M.P.F. Commissioner, Region II, Municipal Building, R...
Palamau Zila Vyawasai Sangh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR364(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.2. The grievance of the members of the writ petitioner is that though they have filed review petitions before the Committee constituted under Section 117 of the Bihar Municipal Act for reviewing the enhancement of the Municipal/Holding Tax but without giving opportunity of hearing to them, some of the review petitions were rejected by order dated 26.2.2003 as contained in Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit during the pendency of the writ petition without assigning any reason whatsoever.3. Though several grounds have been raised in order to challenge the impugned order as annexed in Annexure-C but it is not necessary to deal with all those points raised, in view of the order which I am going to pass. From the impugned order Annexure-C, I find that no reason has been assigned for rejecting the plea raised by the writ petitioner. The order even does not show t...
Bhola Singh @ Mukesh Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR157(Jhr)]
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. From the office note it does appear that carbon copy of Jagarnathpur P.S. case No. 72 of 2007 had been called for by this Court, vide order dated 20.12.2007 but office of Inspector of Police, Jagarnathpur Circle. Ranch sent the case diary of Argora P.S. Case No. 72 of 2007 though in the forwarding letter reference is that of Jagarnathpur P.S. case No. 72 of 2007. It is quite possible that the mistake may have occurred due to inadvertence but it has been pointed out by the office that this kind of mistake on the part of the concerned police official does happen in-variably which not only creates problem for the office of the High Court but it also delays the disposal of the case. However, it can be minimized if due care and diligence is applied by the authority concerned in compliange of the order of this Court.2. That apart it is being invariably noted that certain documents such as viscera report, post-mortem report or injury report etc., which needs to be part ...
Jharkhand Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-28-2008
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR617(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this I.A., the petitioner has prayed for restoration of electricity connection, which was disconnected on 1.1.2008.2. It has been stated that the petitioner is an Industry and has been running Induction Furnace and Sponge Iron Plant. About 300 workers are engaged for the purpose of carrying out manufacturing activity in the said ventures. The electricity of the said concerns was disconnected on 1.1.2008 without assigning any reason to the petitioner.3. It has been stated that the petitioner has been paying electricity bill regularly and has cleared all bills till November, 2007. The respondents have recovered the bill of December, 2007 by encashing the guarantee. No amount of bill is due and the petitioner has never defaulted payment of any bill. The petitioner's electricity has been disconnected on the allegation of theft of electricity allegedly found by the inspection team. The petitioner has disputed and denied the allegations. It has been submitted that p...
Smt. Dashmi OraIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-28-2008
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR624(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioner claims death cum retiral benefits and for appointment of her son on compassionate ground saying that her husband is traceless since 5.7.1998.2. The stand of the respondents is that it is to be seen as to which legal heirs of petitioner's husband is entitled to receive death cum retiral benefits. Though counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no provision for compassionate appointment, but it is said in the counter affidavit that it will be considered as per the rules and regulations.3. Admittedly, petitioner and her family survived for all these nine years. It has been held in : [1994]3SCR893 Umesh Kumar Nagpal that the consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future; and that such appointment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. Paragraph 11 of : AIR2006SC2743 State of J & K and Ors. v. Sajad Ahmed Mir reads as follows:We may also obser...
Mica Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-28-2008
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR997]; [2008(1)JCR641(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 31st March. 2001, passed by S.D.M. cum-Authority under Minimum Wages Act (respondent No. 2) (the Act for short) allowing the application filed by respondent No. 3 under Section 20(1) of the Act.2. Respondent No. 3 filed the said application contending inter alia that he was removed from service illegally on or about 8.5.1996. Petitioner's offer of Rs. 6219/-was much less than the actual dues and therefore respondent No. 3 refused to receive the same. Respondent No. 3 claimed the salary with effect from March, 1996 till the date of filing of the application i.e. April, 1997; the increments with effect from April, 1992 till March, 1996; leave pay for the year 1996-97; and Bonus for 1995-96 and 1996-97. He also claimed provident fund amount.3. Mr. V. Shivnath, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to pass the order on the said application as it was not a case of payment ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »