Jharkhand Court February 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.
Shailesh Kumar Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Through the Secretary Cum ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR1499; [2008(2)JCR6(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. The petitioner, seeking for quashing the order dated 31.08.2007 made in O.A. No. 459 of 2006 by the Central Administrative Tribunal confirming the order of the respondent authority dated 12.08.2003 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for claiming compassionate appointment.2. The brief facts are as follows:(i) The petitioner is the son of a Stenographer, who died in harness on 03.04.2001 while working in the respondent Company.(ii) The father of the applicant left behind his family including his widow, one unemployed son, one unmarried daughter and one divorce daughter, who was totally dependant upon the deceased father.(iii) The widow was also employed as teacher. Later on she retired.(iv) Since the family pension relating to her husband's job as well as another pension from the school where she worked was not sufficient to meet the requirements of such a big family, she applied for compassionate appointment of her son, the petitioner.(v) The claim was r...
B.A. College of Engineering and Technology Vs. State of Jharkhand and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR2153; [2008(2)JCR131(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner is directed to implead the All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi as party respondent.2. In this writ application the petitioner seeks appropriate direction upon the respondents-Ranchi University to iss le no objection certificate as well as affiliation to B.A. College of Engineering and Technology, Gutia, Ghatshila in the district of East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur and further allow the students to appear in the 1st Semester of Engineering Examination scheduled to be held from 17.2.2008.3. I have heard Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned Counsel for the University, Mr. R.N. Sahay, Sr. SC-II, for the State and Mr. A.K. Jha, learned Counsel for the AICTE.4. The fact which has not been disputed, by the counsels an that petitioner-College is run by the Bihar Association pursuant to the invitation issued by the Government of Jharkhand re...
Shiv Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR1367; [2008(2)JCR129(Jhr)]
Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties finally.2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.7.2001 passed by respondent No. 4 whereby the excess amount paid to the petitioner has been ordered to be recovered in installments.3. The petitioner filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1776 of 2001 challenging the orders by which his pay scale was sought to be revised on the ground that he was not eligible for promotion to the post of Head Master and also the order for recovery of the excess amount paid to him. On the ground that the said orders were passed without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the said orders were quashed with a direction to respondent No. 4 to hear the petitioner and take a final decision in this regard within a given time. Pursuant to the said order, the respondent No. 4 has passed the impugned order dated 14.7.2001.4. According to the petitioner, he was given charge of Head Master and, therefore, he was rightly given the pay sca...
Ashok Kumar Jha Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR1493; [2008(2)JCR62(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Although it is well settled law by judicial pronouncements that transfer is an incidence and a condition of service and it cannot be interfered with unless the action of the authorities is arbitrary, whimsical and mala fide, the instant case is one of the instances which shows how the petitioner has been harassed by the authorities of the respondents by issuing notifications after notifications transferring the petitioner from one place to another place.2. The petitioner is a member of Jharkhand State Education Services. Vide notification dated 21.6.2007 he was transferred from the post of District Superintendent of Education, Seraikela-Kharsawan to the post of District Superintendent of Education, Palamau and respondent No. 5, who was working as district Superintendent of Education, Palamau, was transferred to the post of Principal, Primary Teachers Training College, Bokaro. Pursuant to the said transfer order petitioner submitted his joining on 26.6.2007 to the ...
Dhirendra Prasad Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand and Deputy Commissioner
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR1495; [2008(2)JCR1(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The short question that falls for consideration in the instant case is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service after the judgment of acquittal passed in his favour.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:While the petitioner was pasted in Senha Block as Villager Level Worker, an F.I.R. was lodged in 1997 on complaints made by some of the persons of the said Block regarding taking some amount by the petitioner from the beneficiaries at the time of distribution of money under the scheme known as 'Indira Awas Nirman Scheme'. The petitioner was served with a memo of charge and a departmental proceeding was initiated. On the basis of the complaint, a criminal case also proceeded against the petitioner. In the departmental proceeding, after holding inquiry and on the basis of inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority inflicted punishment of withholding of 5 increments with cumulative effe...
Rajiv Ranjan Singh @ Lalan Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and or ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR171(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Today another progress report has been filed. It is noticed therefrom that out of the total 7180 prosecution witnesses, 3814 witnesses have been examined and 3285 witnesses are yet to be examined in 21 cases. Out of 30 cases, three cases, namely, RC 56(A)96Pat, RC 51(A)96Pat, and RC 28(A)/97-AHD, Pat, arc at the stage of 313, Cr PC. three cases, namely, RC 44(A)/96Pat. RC 53(A)/96Pat. and RC 23(A)/96Pat. are at defence witness stage and three cases, namely, RC. 27(A)/96Pat, RC 39(A)/96Pat, and RC 58(A)/96Pat, are at final argument stage. Besides, 21 cases are at prosecution evidence stage, the details of which are given in para 4 of the report, which reads as follows:4. As stated above, 21 cases are at prosecution evidence stage. In the 3 cases mentioned at Sl. Nos. 4. 16 and 19 of ANNEXURE-1, the number of prosecution witnesses that remain to be examined are only 3, 1 and 2 respectively, i.e., a total 6 PWs and the prosecution evidence is nearing completion though an additiona...
Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand,
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR2151; [2008(117)FLR52]; [2008(2)JCR135(Jhr)]; (2008)IILLJ828Jhar
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar and Counsel for the State.2. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.4.2002 passed by respondent No. 2, refusing to refer the matter to Labour Court, Ranchi for adjudication.3. It appears from the impugned order that the petitioner contended before respondent No. 2 that the husband of respondent No. 3 will not come under the Workman Compensation Act and that he died by Heart Attack, and not in accident during employment. The respondent No. 2 rejected the said jurisdictional objections of the petitioner.4. When such dispute was raised by the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 was obliged to send the matter for adjudication, to the Labour Court, Ranchi.5. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and respondent No. 2 is directed to send the matter to the Labour Court, Ranchi.6. Mr. Manish Kumar undertakes to communicate this order respondent No. 2 within one week Within two weeks thereafter the respondent No. 2 will send the recor...
Abhay Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR744(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Letter No. 6/R-1-01/01-1553 dated 4.6.05 (Annexure-3) issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi and also the Letter No. 1146 dated 12.12.06 (Annexure-4) issued by the District Education Officer, Deoghar whereby the petitioner's pay scale has been reduced with retrospective effect with further direction to recover the amount purportedly paid in excess.2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Laboratory Assistant in the vocational Course for Accountancy and Audit in +2 School in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 by Office Order No. 11/NI-2-031/93-SHI-509 dated 15.7.93. The eligibility criteria and educational qualification for the said post was I.A/I.Sc/I.Com with working experience in corresponding field in a recognized institution/department of State or Central Govt. The petitioner having possessed the requisite educational qualification and eligibility was appointed...
Ushman Ansari Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR306(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this interlocutory application, the petitioner has sought direction on the respondents to restrain them from appointing any person/candidate against Class IV post till the final disposal of the writ petition.2. It has been stated that the interview letter was issued to one Gari Lal Mahto including other persons, who, according to the petitioner, are strangers. According to the petitioner, interview letter issued to the candidates for the posts are meant for displaced persons. It has been stated that there is likelihood of large-scale irregularity in the appointments by the SAIL. The posts of Class IV are reserved for displaced persons. An enquiry is required by the CBI to prevent large scale irregularity. The respondents should be also restrained from making any appointment against Class IV post.3. A rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the respondents, stating, inter alia, that this application is frivolous and baseless and that the allegation made ...
Rana Pratap Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-12-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR134(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties finally.2. Petitioner has prayed for a direction to pay his arrears of wages/salary amounting to Rs. 61,433.10 for the period 1.8.1998 to 30.9.2001 calculated in letter dated 9.11.2001 (Annexure 17) and also further wages from 1.10.2001 to 18.6.2002. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order of his termination; and for his regularization in view of circular of Government of Bihar dated 18.6.1993 and several orders by this Court from time to time.3. The stand of the respondents is that the work in the Stale Trading Division of the Forest Department was temporary and seasonal in nature and therefore, the daily wagers including the petitioner were engaged as per requirement. Petitioner was not engaged against any sanctioned post. The work of the Division re diced specially in view of the ban on felling trees. It started suffering losses and it became difficult to sustain tie daily wagers. It was on the verge of closure. It is further submit...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »