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.
Dr. Laxman Sahu Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR350(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is to quash the office order No. 533 dated 30.1.2002 contained in An-nexure-7 to the writ petition, whereby the respondent No. 6 Rajendra Pandey has been made Incharge Head Master of Middle School, Patratu Thermal Power Station, Patratu. Further prayer of the petitioner is to direct the respondents to make him as Incharge Head Master since he is the senior most and qualified for holding the said post.3. According to the case of the petitioner, he was appointed on 13.12.1979 vide Annexure-1 and, thereafter on 21.12.1979 vide issue of Annexure-1/1, he was posted as Assistant Teacher in the Middle School, Patratu Thermal Power Station, Patratu. Thereafter, by issue of Annexure-2 dated 27.5.1982, nine Assistant Teachers including the petitioner and respondent No. 6 Rajendra Pandey were regularized as Assistant Teacher (I.A. trained) in a regular pay scale.4. It appears that on the request...
R.N. Mitra @ Ramendra Nath Mitra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR39a(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Challenging the order of the tribunal, the applicant-petitioner has filed this writ petition. Seeking relief for grant of revised scale of pay of the post of Assistant Director from Rs. 6,500/- 10,500/- to Rs. 7,500/-12,000/- and also for issuance of direction to consider the case of the applicant-petitioner for regular promotion to the post of Grade-I, he filed O.A. before the tribunal.2. The claim of the petitioner is contested by the respondents stating that the restructuring of the three levels of officers in the regional offices was undertaken as per the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission and after restructuring in the cadre of Groups 'B' and 'C' as per the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission, there was only one level, namely, Administrative Officer. This was done on the administrative decision pursuant to the recommedation of the 5th Pay Commission and the Administration was fully authorized to undertake the exercise of restructuring of rationalization. As such...
Munshi Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR410(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Electrical Instructor in ITI, Marhaura (Chhapra) Bihar on 11.9.1975 on the basis of daily wage. He was regularly appointed on 14.8.1981. He got superannuated on 30.4.2002. Thereafter he has been paid his retiral benefits only for the period 14.8.1981 to 30.4.2002 and not for the earlier period during which he worked as an Instructor on Daily Wage Basis.2. Since the earlier services rendered by him from September 1975 to 14.8.1981, the date of his regularisation, had not been counted for his retiral benefits, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to count his services rendered as Electrical Instructor from 11th September, 1975 to 14th August, 1981 also for his pensionary benefits and his retirement benefits. This writ petition was earlier heard by Justice Permod Kohli, the learned Single Judge. The counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the judgment rendered by Justice Tapen Se...
Anupam Kanti Das and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR10(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties finally.2. The petitioners have challenged Order Nos. 1391, 1386, 1390, 1387 and 1388 dated 16.11.2001 (Annexure 11 series) is sued by the Assistant Mining Officer, Dumka directing them to deposits the amounts mentioned therein.3. On or about 15.10.1993. demands were raised against the petitioners by the Assistant Mining Officer for Rs. 5,100/- per month from July, 1998 to September. 1999, being the provisional royalty fixed on a minimum of 5000 sq. ft., per month. The petitioners challenged the said demand vide CWJC No. 3967 of 1994 which was disposed of by order dated 4.5.1996 by passing the following order:In these circumstances the demand of minimum royalty from the petitioner vide annexure 3 is quashed. The respondents are directed to collect from the petitioners the royalty which is payable in accordance with the terms of the lease and in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rule 1972.4. Thereafter when de...
Dilip Patwari Vs. Smt. Malti Devi and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1406; [2008(2)JCR37(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This appeal at the instance of the owner of the vehicle is directed against the award passed by Sri Mahesh Prasad Sinha, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar in W.C. Case No, 2 of 2004 on 27.8.2005 whereby a sum of Rs. 90.088.80/- has been awarded together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.2. This case has a chequered history.3. The claim case was filed by the claimant in the year 1989 for grant of compensation on the ground that deceased was a driver in Maxi Taxi bearing registration No. B.R.L. 6311 which met with an accident while he was on duty on the said vehicle. In the claim case originally, the New India Insurance Company was made as insurer of the said vehicle and as such the said Insurance Company was impleaded as party in the claim case. Thereafter, the said Insurance Company denied the insurance of the vehicle. Thereafter in 1990 Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company was impleaded as party by the claimant who also denied the insurance of the vehicle...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manorama Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ401; [2008(2)JCR414(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard the counsel for the parties in the limitation matter. The delay is of 18 days which has been sufficiently explained.2. Hence, IA is allowed and the delay in filing the appeals is condoned. We have heard the counsel for the parties on the merit of the appeal aso. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 15.6.2005 passed by Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 139/97 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation for the death of one Mithu Sao who died in an accident caused by Bus No. BR-13P-1510 on 2.6.1997. The claimants-respondents are the widow, minor sons and daughters. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned order on the ground that when a person driving the bus was not having valid driving licence, the appellant-Insurance Company has no liability.3. The Tribunal although took notice of the fact that the owner failed to prove the driving licence, it held that no evidence was led by the Ins...
Tata-yodogawa Ltd. and Tayo Workers Union and anr. Vs. State of Bihar ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR781]; [2008(2)JCR595(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. In these writ petitions, same prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner(s) and as such with the consent of the parties; both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 7th August, 2000, whereby the petitioner's application for grant of exemption for the year 1996-97 and 1997-98 under Section 87 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act') have been rejected.3. It has been stated that the petitioner-company has its own welfare scheme more favourable than the scheme provided under the said Act. The employees of the Company are well satisfied with the scheme, which is better in all respect. Being satisfied with the scheme, the appropriate Government had granted exemption for about last ten years. The relevant facts were brought on record, but were not considered. No opportuni...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Gayanti Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR691(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company against the judgment/award passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamshedpur in Compensation Case No. 52 of 2006 whereby a sum of Rs. 9,56,000/-has been awarded.2. The claimants, who are the widow, the daughters and the son of the deceased, filed claim application claiming compensation, who died in a road accident. The deceased along with his family members were coming from Chapra to Jamshedpur by Indica Car and when they reached near Jhumar Bridge, an Ambassador Car bearing registration No. BPX-0484 was coming from the opposite side in a very rash and negligent manner dashed the Indica Car, as a result of which the occupant of the Indica Car received grievous injuries and ultimately the deceased succumbed to his injuries. Ambassador Car was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. After the accident took place, a criminal case was instituted against the driver of the Ambassador Car and he was ch...
Gudri Bazar Shopkeeper's Association Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR90(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the General Notice published in daily newspaper 'Prabhat Khabar' and its Jamshedpur Edition dated 3rd December, 1998, contained in Annexure-9, whereby the persons of Gudri Bazar, including the members of the petitioner-association, were informed to remove the encroachment by 5th December, 1998 failing which the encroachment were to be removed forcibly making the persons liable for the cost.2. This case was finally heard and decided by order dated 7th September, 1999, whereby the impugned notice was set aside and the respondents were directed not to demolish the structures forcibly, which were in occupation of the members of the petitioner-association. Cost of Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand) was also imposed.3. The Market Committee, Chaibasa claimed to be an interested party, but it was not made party in the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the Market Committee, Chaibasa filed a petition f...
Sunayna Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR52(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, vide order dated 13.2.2008, both parties have appeared in person along with their respective lawyers.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has produced a draft copy of the memorandum of application proposed to be filed under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the competent Court.4. However, learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No. 2 informs that the petitioner has already filed a petition for divorce before the Family Court, Dhanbad under Section 13(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act and by a subsequent petition, has prayed before the Court below to treat the aforesaid petition as petition under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Opposite Party No. 2. namely, the husband of the petitioner has also appeared in the said proceedings and has filed his written statement therein. It is further informed that the petitioner, who is the applicant in the aforesaid matrimonial suit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »