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.
Surya Singh and 20 ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR383a(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that they have not been paid the statutory interest accrued on the arrears of their salary, which was not paid to them for the period from 1.1.1971 to 31.3.1973, which was to be credited in the G.P.F. Accounts of the petitioners at the relevant time. Therefore, the petitioners have prayed for payment of the interest upon the G.P.F. contribution. The claim of the petitioners is based on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of 'Hare Ram Pandey v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.' passed on 30th April 2003 in L.P.A. No. 651/2002 as contained in Annexure-3/1 to this writ petition.3. It is stated by the petitioners that in spite of the fact that they have filed representations before D.S.E., Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur (Annexure-2 series), the grievances of the petitioners have not been redressed as yet.4. In this view of the matter, this writ application is being d...
Prayag Narayan Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR685(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties finally.2. In this writ petition, a direction has been sought to pay all post retiral dues on the basis of last pay drawn and not to recover any amount from the petitioner.3. It appears from the Memo No. PEN-4-400 dated 10.6.2002 issued by the Accountant General, that when after the retirement, the service records of the petitioner was sent to the Accountant General, it was found that petitioner was promoted on 18.6.2007 as A.H.W. and accordingly he was entitled to second time bound promotion only w.e.f. 18.4.1992, whereas he was given the same w.e.f. 13.9.1986 and moreover some mistake in pay fixation on 1.4.1981 was also pointed out.4. Mr. Jha, appearing for the petitioner did not dispute the said objections raised by the Accountant General but submitted that petitioner was given time bound promotion w.e.f. 13.9.1986 without any misrepresentation and therefore he is entitled to get the retiral dues on the basis of last pay drawn by him.5. Th...
Krishna Bihari Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR684(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he has not been paid the statutory interest accruable on the arrears of his salary for the period from 1.1.1971 to 31.3.1973, which was to be credited in the G.P.F. Accounts of the petitioner at the relevant time. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for payment of the interest upon the G.P.F. contribution. The claim of the petitioner is based on a Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of 'Hare Ram Pandey v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.' passed on 30th April, 2003 in L.P.A. No. 651/2002 as contained in Annexure-5/1 to this writ petition.3. It is stated by the petitioner that in spite of the fact that he has filed a representation before D.S.E. Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur (Annexure-4), the grievance of the petitioner has not been redressed as yet.4. In this view of the matter, this writ application is being disposed of at this stage itself by giving liberty to ...
Zeyaul Hoda Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR695(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the notice dated 18.11.2005 issued under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act and the proceedings pursuant thereto.2. Petitioner's case is that the area of 27 decimals and 4 decimals, total 31 decimals under plot Nos. 35 and 20 in Khata No. 471 of village-Chitarpur, P.S. Ramgarh was settled to his father in the year 1961 in Settlement Case No. 4/1961-1962. A proceeding being Encroachment Case No. 22/1988-1989 22/1988-1989 was started for removal of encroachment over plot No. 2347 of Khata No. 471. Petitioner appeared and said that he has got no concern with plot No. 2347 and moreover on measurement it was found that there was no encroachment on plot No. 2347 and accordingly in the year 1988, the proceeding was dropped. But without specifying plot number, the impugned notice dated 18.11.2005 was issued to the petitioner. However, petitioner filed show cause but without passing any order, the respondents started demolishing the constructio...
Nirawati Kunwar Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR689(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he has not been paid the statutory interest accrued on the arrears of her salary, which was not paid to her for the period from 1.1.1971 to 31.3.1973, which was to be credited in the G.P.F. Accounts of the petitioner at the relevant time. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for payment of the interest upon the G.P.F. contribution. The claim of the petitioner is based on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hare Ram Pandey v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. passed on 30th April, 2003 in L.P.A. No. 651/2002 as contained in Annexure- 5/1 to this writ petition.3. It is stated by the petitioner that in spite of the fact that he has filed a representation before D.S.E., Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur (Annexure-4), the grievance of the petitioner has not been redressed as yet.4. In this view of the matter, this writ application is being disposed of at this stage its...
Bishnu Prasad Roy Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR678(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner, who is working as Pump Operator in Minor irrigation Department at Rajmahal, has prayed for direction upon the respondents to give him the pay scale of Rs. 950-1400/-, which is admissible to a Tube Well Operator but he has wrongly been given a reduced scale of pay, i.e. Rs. 375-480/-.3. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated on behalf of the respondents that there are two wings in the Minor Irrigation Department, one wing is called 'Proper Wing' and another is called Tube Well Wing'. The petitioner is working in Proper Wing as Pump Operator and in the Proper Wing there is no post of Tube Well Operator and the post of Tube Well Operator only exist in Tube Well Wing, which is a separate cadre and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be given the pay scale of Tube Well Operator. It is also stated by the petitioner in the writ petition that similarly situated persons, who are working as Pump Operator, are getting the pay sca...
Ram Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR690(Jhr)]
ORDERR.R. Prasad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the State.2. The petitioner has been apprehending his arrests in Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 123 of 2005 registered under Section 409/120B of the Indian Penal Code.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that as per the case of the prosecution, this petitioner, who at the relevant point of time, was posted as Junior Engineer, District Board, Hazaribagh was entrusted to do work of construction of road for an estimated amount of Rs. 12 lacs and out of that the petitioner withdrew Rs. 6.38 lac though did not complete the work for the said value and that road which was constructed was not as per specification but the fact is that by the time the petitioner could complete the work, he got transferred and, therefore, he made repeated requests to stay his transfer so that he may complete the work but the request made by the petitioner was not acceded to and now after t...
Jagdish Nath and Company Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR686(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.7.2007 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3720 of 2002. The order reads as under:Petitioner's grievance is that due to wrong fixation of commission on kerosene oil in the District of Simdega, for the months of March, April and May, 2002, petitioner suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-Paragraph 15 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner and the District Supply Officer reads as follows :15. That it is stated that the retail price of Kerosene Oil was fixed by respondent No. 2 on 13.3.2002 in ignorance of letters as contained in Annexure-C series as they were not available in newly created district of Simdega.2. Mr. Modi fairly submitted that though there was a mistake in fixing the commission but the same was bona fide and the same was corrected from the month of June, 2002. He further submitted that due to such mistake petitioner's commission got reduced. In other words, he earned less profit duri...
Parmanand Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR699(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties finally.2. Petitioner is claiming family pension from 30.9.1987.3. Counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of learned Single Judge of Patna High Court in the case of Smt. Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar 1996 (2) PLJR 470. He further relied on a Division Bench judgment of Photo Devi v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2002 (1) JLJR 703 : 2002 (1) JCR 376 (Jhr).4. The stand of the respondents is that petitioner's father who was an Assistant Teacher was superannuated after attaining the age of 62 years on 30.6.1967 and he was entitled to Triple Benefit Scheme vide PO No. 897 (TBS).5. Mr. Shrivastava, appearing for respondent No. 5, submitted that as per the Government Circular, though the benefits of family pension scheme, 1964 were extended to all eligible member of family of those Government Servants who retired or died before 31.3.1964 but those who were alive on 31.3.1964 had to opt out of the 1964 Scheme vide Finance Depts. reso...
State of Jharkhand Vs. Swaminath Prasad
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR59(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.1.1995 passed by the Special Judge, CBI in RC 12(A) 91R whereby the learned trial Court had acquitted the respondent from the charge under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. The gist of the charge is that in his capacity as a public servant employed in the Town Administration Department. Estate Section of the Bokaro Steel Plant at Bokaro. the accused/respondent had. on 11.6.1991, demanded and received rupees fifty as illegal gratification from the complainant. A Kumar, an employee of the Bokaro Steel Plant, and has thereby obtained for himself pecuniary benefit by illegal means.3. One day earlier i.e. on 10.6.1991. the complainant had lodged a complaint before the vigilance officer apprising him of the demand made by the accused for illegal gratification for supplying him two ceiling fans from the stores department. The complainant was...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »