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.
Shakuntala Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-28-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR53]; [2008(1)JCR599(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties finally.Petitioner has claimed her appointment on compassionate ground against the death of her husband, Ropan Sao who died on 28.11.2000.2. Mr. C.S. Prasad, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondents are not finalising the matter and therefore petitioner is not responsible for the delay.3. The stand of the respondents is that the minimum qualification for appointment on Class IV post is 8th Class pass, but during interview the Screening Committee found that petitioner is unable to read and write. Petitioner's Transfer Certificate was verified with the School records by the District Education Officer, Ranchi and it was found fake. Accordingly, the District Compassionate Appointment Committee rejected petitioner's claim.4. Though such stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit filed as far as back on 19.9.2007 has not been controverted by the petitioner, but Mr. Prasad submitted that petitioner should have been given opp...
Ram Bahadur Bhagat Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-28-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR296(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The petitioner seeks a direction for payment of salary from 13.1.2005 to 28.6.2005 on the ground, inter alia, that after bifurcation of the State there was some doubt with regard to joining of the petition and, therefore, pursuant to the order dated 16.6.2005 passed by this Court in WPS No. 1938/2005 the petitioner submitted his joining in the petitioner submitted his joining in the State of Bihar on 28.6.2005. After joining the petitioner filed a representation before the authority. It is said that till date the representation has not been disposed of.2. In the background of the aforesaid facts I dispose of this writ application with direction to respondent No. 2 and/or respondent No. 4 whoever may be competent, to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner by passing reasoned order deciding the entitlement of the petitioner for getting salary. ...
Sukdeo Baitha and ors. Vs. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-28-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR18(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the dismissal orders both dated 20.6.2001, issued by the respondent No. 3, General Manager, S.P. Mines Area (Annexures 4 and 4/1).2. The petitioners' case is that their land was acquired for mining purpose by the respondents and in lieu thereof, they were given employment after proper enquiry and full satisfaction of the respondents. The petitioners were given appointment letters and on that basis, they joined at Chitra Colliery in 1982. In due course, their appointments were made permanent and the petitioners were working to the satisfaction of the Management. There was nothing adverse against them. One Parwati Devi, D/o Late Rusan Baitha had filed a suit being Title (D) Suit No. 52 of 1996/25 of 1996 against the Chairman, Coal India Limited and others in the Court of Sub-Judge, Deoghar claiming half share of the compensation amount of the acquired land and job for heirs of nominee. The said suit wa...
Doman Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-28-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR322(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondent No. 3 to accept the execution of the deed of transfer and to register the transferred deed executed by the petitioner through his duly constituted attorney/power of attorney holder. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order of the Circle Officer dated 10.2.2007 (Annexure-5 Series) whereby the Circle Officer has rejected the petitioner's application and refused to grant no objection for execution of the sale deed.2. The petitioner's case is that the land appertaining to plot No. 662, Zamnabandi No. 1239 of Mouza-Jhausagarhi within Deoghar Municipal Ward No. 16 recorded as Basauri (homestead) land was held and possessed by one Smt. Fibi Mehta, wife of Birchi Lal Mehta. The holder of the land Fibi Mehta transferred an area of 2 Kathas and 4 Dhurs of plot No. 662 to Bapi Chakraborty, son of Ramen Chakraborty and Subaul Noren, son of Late Babu Noren by virtue of a register...
Suraj Rai Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-28-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR321(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.This writ petition was filed for direction on the respondents not to make any further deduction from the pension of petitioner against possession of the Quarter No. T.I. 141 on the ground that petitioner is not in possession of any quarter, and also for refund of Rs. 22,980/- which was recovered/adjusted from the pensionary benefits as penal rent for occupation of the said quarter.2. The stand of the respondents is that petitioner did not hand over vacant possession of the said quarter and it is illegally occupied by him. Petitioner was directed to file an affidavit annexing specific proof of handing over vacant possession of the said quarter, which he did not file. By order dated 28.11.2007, this Court ordered for an inspection in presence of the parties. The inspection report has been filed with the affidavit dated 11.1.2008 in which it has been found that petitioner has inducted his son. namely. Dharamnath Rai in the said quarter and petiti...
Satya Narayan Lal and ors. Vs. Rajendra Prasad Sahu and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR1360
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. This contempt application has been filed by the petitioners, seeking to punish the opposite parties on the ground that the opposite parties have violated the terms of compromise entered into between the parties, namely, the petitioners and the opposite parties in Title Appeal No. 119 of 1994 as they have not handed over the possession of the suit premises to the petitioners.2. The case of the petitioners is as follows:(i) The petitioners' father executed a lease deed on 31.07.1968 in respect of a shop premises in favour of the father of the defendants-tenants.(ii) On the death of the original lessor and lessee, their legal heirs have been substituted.(iii) A suit for eviction was filed in the year 1978. The suit was decreed on 22.09.1985 in favour of the lessor.(iv) The defendants-opposite parties preferred an appeal in Title Appeal No. 15 of 1985 before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi.(v) Though the appeal was allowed on 11.08.1988, on the order of the S...
Bijay Munda Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR630(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at this stage itself.In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.11.2006/5.12.2006 passed by the Sr. Personnel Officer of the Respondents C.C.L. (Annexure-6), whereby the claim of the petitioner for being appointed on compassionate ground on account of death of his mother, which took place on 18/06/1995, has been refused on the ground that the application for such appointment was filed beyond the prescribed period of six months from the date of death of the employee. It appears that in the said order dated 19.11.2006/5.12.2006 (Annexure-6) it has wrongly been mentioned that the application for compassionate appointment was filed on 31.12.1997. In fact, it was filed on 31.12.1995 and this fact has also been admitted by the respondent in their counter affidavit in paragraph 11 thereof as well as in Annexure-A series.2. The present case is fully covered ...
Management of Department of Telecommunication, P and T Electrical Divi ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR116(Jhr)]; (2008)IIILLJ832Jhar
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated 30.8.2006 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. I, Dhanbad whereby the award has been made holding the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not allowing the workman Satish Deo Ram to get him back in the employment, not proper and justified and directing the Management to reinstate him without back wages. The petitioner has challenged the said award mainly on the grounds that the award is not based on proper appreciation of evidence on record, the stand of the Management has not been discussed and the said reference case was barred by the principles of res judicata. It has been stated that though the Management has taken a clear stand that the concerned workman had abandoned the work and had stopped coming and there was no retrenchment by the Management, the said aspect has not been considered by the learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal has also not considere...
Badal Jaiswal, Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR1364; 2008CriLJ2537; [2008(2)JCR419(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. All the three writ applications arise out of the same F.I.R. and, as such, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. All the above mentioned writ petitions have been filed for quashing of the first information report being Barwadda P.S. Case No. 183 dated 31/07/2004 (Annexure-1), which has been registered under Sections 272, 273/34 IPC against the above named petitioners, who are named in the FIR.3. The FIR has been registered on the basis of a written report lodged by Sri Narayan Prabhakar, Circle Officer Govindpur. It has been alleged in the first information report that on receipt of secret information that illegal manufacturing and sale of country made liquor was going on in the premises of K.D. Liquor and Fertilizers Private Limited, the informant alongwith his team reached at the premises, i.e. K.D. Liquor & Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. on 30/07/2004 at 9.30 P.M. and made inspection in presence of two independent witnesses. In cour...
Union of India Through Senior Divisonal Officer, South Eastern Railway ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR1477; [2008(2)JCR113(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The short question which calls for determination in this writ application is, whether placement of the respondent in the post of Khalashi Helper from the post of Trolley Shed Khalashi in the same group-D constitutes promotion in terms of the Railway Board's Assured Career Progression Scheme for the Railway Servant?2. The respondent / applicant who is a Railway servant had moved the Central Administrative Tribunal for issuance of a direction to the petitioner, S.E. Railway, to consider his case for financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme and for a direction to extend the benefit of two financial upgradations with retrospective effect, as also to consider his claim for regular promotion to the post of Fitter Grade-III on the ground that he had put in more than 9 years of service in that post.3. The grounds on the basis of which the respondent / applicant had moved the Tribunal are,He is a Khalashi Helper working at Hatia Railway Station. He was originally rec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »