Jharkhand Court April 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.
Bihar State Road Transport Corporation Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR10(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The only point raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the order of dismissal of the workmen respondent is perfectly valid as it was passed by the Additional General Manager who is competent to pass the said order in view of the fact that under Clause 14 of the circular issued in 1954 powers of the General Manager have been delegated to the Additional General Manager who passed the order of dismissal of the respondents No. 2.3. The workman, the respondent No. 2 on being aggrieved by the order of his dismissal, filed an application before the appellate authority which was dismissed. Then he filed a reference case No. 5 of 1990 before the Tribunal which after conducting an enquiry allowed the application on the ground that the Additional General Manager who passed the order of dismissal was not the competent authority and set aside the order of dismissal of the respondent workman and ordered for his reinstatement.4. Being aggri...
Union of India (Uoi) Through Senior Divisional Personal Officer, East ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR502(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. Dinesh Prasad Chaturvedi, respondent No. 2, working as Chief Office Superintendent in East Central Railways, Dhanbad, applied for voluntary retirement to the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railways, Dhanbad, on 26.2.2003. It was accepted by the order of the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer on 31.3.2003 with effect from 25.5.2003. Before expiry of the said period, the Railway authority issued a letter dated 22.4.2003,keeping the order of acceptance in abeyance as the respondent No. 2 had been proceeded with minor penalty charge sheet dated 8.4.2003. Thereafter the order of acceptance was cancelled by the order dated 4.8.2003. Challenging the same, the respondent No. 2 filed O.A. on 5.2.2004 before the Tribunal.The Tribunal passed order on 22.8.006 declaring the respondent-applicant to have voluntarily retired from service with effect from 25.5.2003. Aggrieved by that, Union of India through the Senior Divisional Personal Officer, East C...
Anil Kumar Choudhary and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR624(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for a declaration that Rule 4(2)(6) of the Bihar State Nationalised Elementary School Teacher (Transfer and Disciplinary Action) Rules, 1994, as adopted by the Government of Jharkhand under the provisions of Section 85 of the Bihar Re-Organisation Act, 2000 is ultra vires to the extent it lays down the eligibility of Home District necessary for inter-district transfer of the male teachers on the ground that the same is against the provisions of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India.2. The case of the petitioners is as follows:(i) The petitioners were appointed on the post of Elementary Teachers in January 2000. Some of the petitioners were posted at Palamau and some of the petitioners were posted at Latehar.(ii) They have completed five years of minimum service in the Government of Jharkhand. They filed their application for inter-district transfer in view of Rule 4 of the Bihar State Nationalised E...
Rana Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR81(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant Rana Singh under Section 341, Cr.PC against the order dated 10.8.2007 passed by AJC-XI, Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 1/2007 arising out of Sessions Trial No. 168/2001.2. Before coming to the merit of the present appeal, the admitted facts on record are relevant for proper appreciation of the merit of the appeal.3. The appellant Rana Singh is facing trial under Section 302, IPC registered as Sessions Trial No. 168/2001. PW 9, Renu Kumari was examined by the prosecution on 19.5.2003. After this on 18.6.2004 co-accused Munna Rai @ Shatrughan Rai filed a petition that said Renu Kumari was actually Surekha Kumari and she may be prosecuted for giving false evidence. When the trial Court denied to entertain such petition, Cr. Appeal No. 1761/2004 was preferred before this Court, which was disposed of with direction to make enquiry and proceed in accordance with law. The trial Court accordingly con...
Parmanand Kumar Sahu Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR786]; [2008(3)JCR93(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard parties finally.2. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the office order No. 36 (Annexure 2) issued by respondent No. 2 by which his appointment letter was cancelled on the ground that the appointment was irregular.3. Mr. Verma, appearing for petitioner, submitted that the petitioner applied pursuant to an advertisement against the post of 'Typist (Headquarter)' and he was selected; and accordingly appointment letter was issued on 23.12.1997 appointing him, though temporarily. As he was working as daily wager in Jawan Bhawan, Ranchi, he requested for relieving him which was allowed and he gave his joining on 9.2.1998 before the respondent No. 2. When the salary was not paid, petitioner filed writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2519 of 1998 which was disposed of on 11.2.1999. The respondents in the counter affidavit raised plea in the said writ petition that appointment of petitioner was not made in accordance with law and he never performed his duty at the place wh...
Mahendra Kumar Tiwari and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR87(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. The present letters patent appeals have been filed by the writ petitioners-appellants against the common order passed by the learned single Judge on 24.10.2007 dismissing the writ petitions filed by the petitioners challenging the common notification bearing Memo No. 2839 dated 22.6.2007 whereby the private respondents working as Assistant Public Prosecutors were allowed to function as in-charge Public Prosecutors in the concerned district Courts.2. The short facts are as follows:(i) The petitioners-appellants were appointed as public prosecutors of different districts on the basis of the recommendations sent by the respective Deputy Commissioners for the post of Public Prosecutors on tenure post. The notifications were issued appointing them on the said post for three years.(ii) When the said period was about to expire, the Deputy Commissioners of the respective districts sought consent from the petitioners-appellants for recommending them for a further pe...
Union of India (Uoi) Through Senior Divisional Personnel Officer Vs. D ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR874]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. Dinosh Prasad Chaturvedi, respondent No. 2, working as Chief Office Superintendent in East Central Railways, Dhanbad, applied for voluntary retirement to the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railways, Drianbad, on 26.2.2003. It was accepted by the order of the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer on 31.3.2003 with effect from 25.5.2003. Before expiry of the said period, the Railway authority issued a letter dated 22.4.2003, keeping the order; of acceptance in abeyance as the respondent No. 2 had been proceeded with minor penalty charge-sheet dated 8.4.2003. Thereafter the order of acceptance was cancelled by the order dated 4.8.2003. Challenging the same, the respondent No. 2 filed O.A on 5.2.2004 before the Tribunal.The Tribunal passed order on 22.8.2006 declaring the respondent-applicant to have voluntarily retired from service with effect from 25.5.2003. Aggrieved by that Union of India through the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Eas...
Sandhya Devi Vs. the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant of Steel Authori ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR1170]; [2008(2)JCR518(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties finally.2. Petitioner being the wife of deceased workman-Ambuj Das has challenged the Award dated 18.12.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City in Reference Case No. 8 of 2002.The following dispute was referred for adjudication:Whether, on the basis of charge sheet letter No. Pers/W oo/C.O.D./114 F.D.Y./55/2000-245 dated 2.8.2000, dismissal of Sri Ambuj Das Staff No. 423278, Purb Take/Elec. Steel Foundary, Bokaro Steel Plant, is justified? If not what relief he is entitled toThe following charges were levelled against the husband of the petitioner:(i) Giving false information regarding once particular's for the purpose of obtaining employment in the company.(ii) Contracting another marriage while first wife is still alive.(iii) Submission of false non-ericumbrance certificate for the purpose of taking house building advance loan from the company.3. The Labour Court on recording the statement of petitioner (first wife) held that the ...
Madan Pandey Etc. and Mukund Pandey Vs. Bccl and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR516(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. As both the writ petitions involve similar questions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Petitioners have challenged the orders dated 7.9.2007, passed in Misc. Appeal Nos. 87/2005 and 86/2005 respectively, by learned District Judge, Dhanbad, affirming the order passed by the Estate Officer in Eviction Case No. 2 of 2005 dated 11.8.2005.3. Counsel for the petitioners relying on paragraph 6 of the purported agreement dated 31st March, 1995 (Annexure 3) submitted that the title and possession of the petitioners were accepted and thus there was a bona fide and complicated questions of title, which could not be decided in the summary proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (the Act for short), and the respondents were required to file suit, He relied on the judgments reported in 2002 (2) JLJR 629 : 2003 (1) JCR 230 (Jhr)-Madan Mohan Vadehra v. BCCL and 2002 (3) JCR 700 (Jhr) : 2002 ...
Durga Prasad Agarwal Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR522(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. Present criminal revision is directed against the order impugned dated 16.1.2007, passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 245 of 2005, where by and where under, petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected.2. Petitioner has earlier moved before this Court almost with similar prayer for his discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was allowed in Cr. Revision No. 739 of 2006 on 6.11.2006 with the following observation,In catena of decisions it were held that whenever any discharge petition is filed on behalf of the accused, duty is cast upon the Court concerned to specify the prima facie materials against the petitioner-accused for framing of charge which is lacking in the instant case and for such reason the order impugned passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 245/05 on 8.8.2006 is set aside ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »