Jharkhand Court December 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.
Arbind Bhushan Dey and ors., Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-05-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR513(Jhr)]
ORDERAjit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The petitioners have filed three separate writ petition, seeking an identical relief arising out of the same cause of action and, thus, all the three writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.2. Common prayer in the aforesaid three writ petitions is for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, commanding upon the concerned respondents to immediately and forthwith allow them the unrevised Graduate Trained Pay Scale of Rs. 850-1360/- in the 4th Pay Scale and the subsequent replacement scales of pay in the 5th Pay Scale with effect from the respective dates on which the petitioners acquired teachers training in the light of the Government letter No. F/Wa 1-08/80 Ed. 50 dated 20.2.1981.3. The facts, in brief, are stated as under:Under the UNICEF Plan, Science Teachers were to be appointed in Primary Schools running up to Class-VIII as Additional Science Teachers. The then Education Commissioner, Bih...
Shiblal Manjhi Vs. Central Coal Field Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-05-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR507(Jhr)]
ORDERAjit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:(a) For quashing the order dated 30.3.1995, issued under the signature of respondent No. 3, whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated in most illegal and arbitrary manner and the entire departmental proceeding is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice; and(b) For quashing the order dated 31.7.2003, issued by respondent No. 3, whereby respondent has dismissed the representation filed by the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 8.5.2003, passed in W.P.(S) No. 2246 of 2003.2. The facts, in brief, are set out as under:The petitioner was appointed as Post-time rated worker on 9.5.1989. His wife died on 18.6.1994 and the local police implicated him and, accordingly, he was arrested on 19.6.1994. According to the petitioner, he being a simple tribal could not write any letter to the respondents but communicated the fact of his arrest through the local pers...
G.S. Bajwa Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-05-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR505(Jhr)]
ORDERJaya Roy, J.1. The Instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 9.12.2004 passed in complaint Case No. 261/2003 (T.R. No. 580/2005) by Sri Daya Ram, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh for an offence under Section 420, IPC against the petitioner. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 1.9.2004 passed in Cr. Revision No. 133/2004 by the learned Sessions Judge on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed and also for quashing all subsequent proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate so far the petitioner is concerned.2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Sharif Bhuiya filed a complaint case against three persons including the present petitioner alleging that since he was in urgent need of money for the marriage of his daughter, he contacted one U.S. Prasad, an employee of Preet Automobiles, Hazaribagh through his friend. Dilip Sao. Mr. U.S. Prasad assured ...
Smt. Manti Devi Vs. Central Coalfield Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-05-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR511(Jhr)]
Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing that part of the order dated 25.1.2003, as contained in memo No. 2298 issued under the signature of General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Kuju, whereby and whereunder petitioner's grievance for appointment on compassionate ground as Sanitation Mazdoor has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has approached the respondents for appointment on compassionate ground after expiry of one year and eleven months of the death of her husband as the respondent himself has sought the willingness from the petitioner whether she Is willing to work as Sanitation Mazdoor or not and pursuant thereto the petitioner has given her willingness to work as Sanitation Mazdoor and also for a direction to the respondents, particularly respondent No. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground to the post of Sanitation Mazdo...
Papinder Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-05-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1913
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. I.A. No. 2219 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioner seeking an amendment in the order dated 16-10-2006 passed by this Court whereby the provisional bail of the petitioner Was cancelled.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that by aforesaid order, the petitioner was directed to surrender himself before the Court below forthwith and in failure of the petitioner to comply with the order, a liberty was given to the Court below to take appropriate coercive steps in order to secure the petitioner's appearance. It is explained that the petitioner could not surrender before the Court below forthwith on account of the fact that he had taken time to arrange for the money which was to be paid to the complainant. The petitioner has ultimately been able to collect the fund and to pay up the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The complainant having acknowledged the receipt of such payment, has now agreed to settle the dispute with the petitioner out of Co...
Kishore Kumar Gera Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-05-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR504(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Though today the Interlocutory Application filed on behalf of the petitioner for continuance of the interim order dated 20th November, 2008 has been placed for consideration on the ground that the talk of compromise is going on between the parties but Mr. Shailesh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 controverted the said statement made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that he has not such information and therefore, objected to the prayer made in the said Interlocutory Application for continuance of the interim order.2. At this juncture, Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shailesh learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 stated that let the main writ petition be heard and disposed of on its merit.3. Accordingly, I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the merit of the writ petition.4. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is for quashing the First Informat...
Smt. Prem Lata Sinha and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-05-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR516(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. In course of submissions, learned Counsel for the respondent-State of Bihar invites attention to Annexure-21 filed by the writ petitioners and points out that the aforesaid annexure is a Notification issued by the State Government of Bihar whereby a decision was taken for revision in the 'initial pay' of the employees of the Non-Government Aided Libraries, but with stipulation that such revision is in respect of the initial pay only and the other payment which would include payment towards Dearness Allowance and other allowances etc. should be borne by the Management of the individual libraries.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks to clarify that on the basis of the notification issued by the Government of Bihar vide Annexure-21, the petitioners had received their salaries in the revised pay scale till the year 1998. This being the undisputed fact, the State Government of Jharkhand cannot deny that the petitioners were all along entitled to the revised...
Kailash Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-04-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR9(Jhr)]
ORDERAjit Kumar Sinha, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:2. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction or a writ in the nature of mandamusc commanding upon the respondents mainly respondent No. 3, Director. B.I.T. Sindri to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner against the Class-IV post for which the petitioner has successfully competed in the written test followed by the interview and his name has been declared in the list of successful candidates for being appointed against Class IV posts keeping in view that the petitioner is rendering his service for the BIT. Sindri since 1989 till to date continuously and is being paid remuneration at Daily wages basis.3. For issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to immediately start paying to the petitioner on pay scale for Class-IV employees and to implement the decision of the Hon'ble Court by appointing the suc...
Shanti Udyog Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-04-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR536(Jhr)]
R.R. Prasad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.Through this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order as contained in memo No. 62 dated 14.3.2007 (Annexure 4) whereby licence granted to the petitioner for running a factory in the name and style as Shanti Udyog situated at Markora, Mugma, Dhanbad has been cancelled.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that licence of the petitioner for running the. said factory has been cancelled without giving any opportunity of hearing and as such, on this ground alone, the order of cancellation of licence of the petitioner's factory is fit to be set aside and that apart, the impugned order is tainted with mala fide as the same has been passed on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour, Employment and Training and, therefore, the impugned order is fit to be set aside.3. However, learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that...
Dilip Kumar Keshari Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-04-2008
Reported in: [2009(1)JCR634(Jhr)]
ORDERJaya Roy, J.1. The instant revision application is directed against the judgment dated 21.9.2006 passed by Sri Shivpal Singh, S.D.J.M. Dumka in G.R case No. 632 of 1999/T.R case No. 73 of 2006 whereby the accused persons i.e. opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have been acquitted giving benefit of doubt. According to the first information report, the petitioner (the Informant) was sitting in his room and the accused persons came there and started abusing the petitioner. Thereafter, they assaulted the petitioner by lathi etc. on which the petitioner sustained a number of injuries. On his 'Hulla' his wife came to save him but the accused persons even assaulted her by lathi and feast upon which she also sustained injuries. Thereafter, the informant's brother Manoj Keshri also came to the place of occurrence. But the accused persons also assaulted him and they snatched the informant's gold ring. It is further alleged that three years before the said accused persons assaulted the informant...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »