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.
Binod Pathak Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR138(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the office order No. 121 dated 9.3.2007, contained in Annexure-10, issued by the respondents, whereby the petitioner has been deputed for driving a vehicle of one D.K. Srivastava, Special Secretary Rural Development Department.2. Admittedly, the petitioner is visually impaired/handicapped person and considering his said disability, he was assigned work of Routine Clerk since the year 1995. A short point has been raised in this writ petition.3. It has been stated that the petitioner is a visually impaired/handicapped, he is not a fit person to drive a motor vehicle In view of the provisions under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the petitioner was assigned work of routine clerk, Suddenly by the impugned order dated 9.3.2007 (Annexure-10), the petitioner has been deputed ...
Shifa Ul AIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR173(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought, direction on the respondents to allow her to appear in Professional Education Examination-II, November, 2007 (Chartered Accountancy Examination) (hereafter to be referred as the 'Examination') through a writer.2. It has been stated that the petitioner passed her B.Com. (Hons.) Examination from Ranchi University and has also passed Professional Education Examination Part-I (Chartered Accountancy Examination). The petitioner developed a serious disease, namely. Writer's Cramps in her right hand, as a result of which she was unable to write answer book. The petitioner had made application before the Ranchi University for appearing in the B.Com. Examination, requesting to provide writer, which was allowed by the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 15th May, 2006. She appeared in B.Com. Examination through the writer and has been declared successful.3. The petitioner due to her said ailment requested the respon...
Dew Concrete Ties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR372a(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The premises of the petitioner, who is H.T. consumer, was raided and it was alleged that seal of L.V. cum C.T. box was found broken. The officials assessed the quantum of loss of the Board to the tune of Rs. 34 lakhs. The petitioner challenged the order by filing W.P.C. No. 926 of 2006. This Court disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner to move the Forum, namely, Upbhokta Sikayat Niwaran Forum. In the meantime, it was ordered that if the petitioner deposits Rs. 30 lakhs, electric connection shall be restored. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner moved the Forum, but the Forum refused to decide the issue on the ground that it has no jurisdiction.2. In the backgrounds of the aforesaid facts, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Board have not disputed that the Superintending Engineer is the competent authority to assess the actual loss caused to the Board under Section 126 of the Act.3. I, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with...
Gopi Nath Panda Vs. Central Coal Field Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR524(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petitioner has raised the dispute of right, title and possession over the land in question. The petitioner has claimed that he has got right, title and possession over the land at Khewat Nos. 2/3, 2/4 and 2/7 which was given in Khairat to the petitioner's ancestors and on the basis thereof they had been in continuous possession and there was inter se transactions of the portion of the said land. The said land was also the subject matter of Partition Suit No. 38/1951 and in the final decree the said land has been mentioned. It has been submitted that all these documents go to prove the petitioner's right, title and continuous possession. But the C.C.L. without any right aid title has been illegally mining over the petitioner's land. The petitioner has, thus, prayed for compensation for the said illegal and unauthorised mining over his land by the C.C.L.2. The C.C.L has seriously contested the claim of right, title and possession of the petiti...
Binod Kumar Sinha Vs. B.C.C.L. Through Its Chairman-cum-managing Direc ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR99(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 29th December, 2005 passed by the General Manager, Kustore Area No. VIII, whereby the petitioner's representation for consideration of his request for regularisation on the post of Supervisor (Telecom) as also for payment of wages of Supervisor (Telecom) for the duty he has discharged has been rejected.2. The petitioner is a Telephone Operator, Technical Grade-D and joined in the services of the BCCL in 1993. The petitioner claimed that by letter dated 10th May, 2002, the Superintending Engineer (E&M;), Telecom, Kustore Area, authorised the petitioner to look after the job of Supervisor (Telecom) of Kustore Area Office, EPABX Exchange.3. Grievance of the petitioner is that though he was authorised to look after the job of Supervisor (Telecom), neither the salary of Supervisor (Telecom) has been paid to him nor he has been regularized on the said post.4. Earlier the petitioner approached...
Sant Kumar Sahu and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR654(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 3.2.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella Kharsawan in Misc. Petition No. 71/2005-06, whereby the learned Deputy Commissioner has refused to restore the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction on the respondents to restore the licence of Fair Price Shop as has been done in the case of similarly situated persons. The petitioners are Fair Shop Dealers and for that they were granted valid licence on 28.6.2000. General notices to show-cause were issued to the petitioners along with others. The petitioners had filed their reply. Learned Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority cancelled the licence of each of the petitioners by order dated 19.10.2000. Similar orders cancelling the licences were passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing authority. One Bhagirath Panda and others filed an application before the Deputy Co...
Sanjay Prasad Yadav Vs. Chairman, Railway Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-06-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR377(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha for the petitioner and Mr. P. Modi for the respondents.2. The prayer of the petitioner is to direct the respondents to issue appointment letter in his favour for the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Railway Protection Force.3. Admitted case of the parties is that the petitioner qualified in written test as well as in the interview for the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in RPF and he was informed by letter dated 5.11.2001 that his name has already been recommended to the Director General (R.P.F) Railway Board for further action and an offer of appointment will be sent to him by the competent officer of security Department in due course. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed by Annexure-4, i.e. the letter dated 4.3.2002 to appear on 15.3.2002 for verification of original documents and for medical examination at Calcutta.4. The petitioner made a grievance in this writ petition that in spite of the above facts no appointment...
Uttam Chandra Mehara and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand Through the D ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR2171; [2008(2)JCR705(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties finally.f2. All these writ petitions arise out of the appointment of class IV employees in Godda District. Some of the points being common, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.3 In W.P.(S) No. 5289/2005, the petitioners have challenged the selection process including the filling up of backlog vacancies, whereas in W.P.(S) No. 2769 of 2006 and W.P.(S) No. 3233 of 2007, the petitioners have challenged the filling up of backlog vacancies only.4. According to the petitioners of W.P. (S) No. 5289 of 2005, the draft panel dated 16.9.2002 was correctly prepared, but the final panel dated 12.8.2005 was prepared fixing wrong (sic) and ignoring the order of this Court and the policy of the Government, under which relaxation of age and weightage for experience was to be given. It was further submitted that on certain complaints, the Divisional Commissioner, Dumka by letter dated 10.9.2005 directed the Deputy Commissioner, G...
Syed ManiruddIn and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-06-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR697(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the orders passed by the licensing authority-cum-S.D.O, Godda by his Memo Nos. 307. 308, 309. 311, 312, 313, 314, 315. 316 and 317 whereby the said respondent by one stroke of pen has cancelled the licences of the petitioners granted to them for sale of kerosene oil.2. The petitioners had challenged the said cancellation order in W.P.(C) No. 3804/2006 and W.P.(C) No. 3807/2006. In view of the alternative remedy, this Court by order dated 7.9.2006 had directed the respondents to prefer revision before the Commissioner as the said orders of cancellation was passed on the direction of the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner, thereafter, filed revision before the Commissioner and by order dated 26.3.2007 (Anne-xure-15), the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka dismissed the petitioners' revision. The petitioners have also sought for quashing the said order dated 26.3.2007 (Annexure-15).3...
Sudhanshu Bhushan Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-06-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR670(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by paragraph-2 of the promotion order dated 24.4.2007, contained in Annexures-5. By the said Annexure-5, the petitioner was given promotion to the post of Additional Collector in the pay scale of Rs. 12,000- 16,500/-, but in paragraph-2 of the said order, the petitioner has been debarred from his monetary benefit and other benefits from the date of promotion. It has been mentioned that the same will be admissible from the date of notification of the said order.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that once the authorities decided to give promotion to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.11.2004, there was no occasion for depriving him of promotional benefit from the said date. It has been stated that the petitioner was earlier subjected to criminal proceeding, which was quashed. He was also subjected to departmental proceeding, but that was also quashed. In spite of the same, juniors were given promotion w.e.f. 1.11.2004 and the petitione...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »