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.
Laxmi Narayan Singh Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-10-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR514(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. In this writ petition, the dispute is with regard to age/date of birth of the petitioner.2. Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the Age Determination Committee (for short 'the Committee') determined the petitioner's age as 38 years on 22.8.1986, according to which, his date of birth comes to 22.8.1948 and the same was mentioned in his service excerpt as well as in the Identity Card also. But petitioner has been superannuated with effect from 31.8.2006 before completing 60 years. She lastly submitted that, in any event, the respondents be directed to get the petitioner's age determined by constituting a fresh Medical Board.3. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand submitted that the petitioner's age was recorded in the statutory Form 'B' register as 28 years as declared and signed by him; and accepted by the Management, on the date of his appointment i.e. on 30.1.1973, accor...
Jagu Mal @ Jagdish Ray Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-10-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR553(Jhr)]
D.P. Singh, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The present miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner Jagu Mal @ Jagdish Ray against the order dated 31.8.2000 by which the prayer of the petitioner to discharge him has been rejected.3. The petitioner has preferred this miscellaneous petition on the grounds that in the FIR itself no allegation has been made out that he acted in any manner to induce the complainant-informant to hand over the business to Braj Kumar Madhyan said to be his son- in-law with whom he has been made accused in Pakur (M) P.S. Case No. 104 of 1999. The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that even in the fard beyan the O.P. No. 2 Jagdish Kumar has asserted that the business was handed over to said Braj Kumar Madhyan on certain conditions in which the petitioner has agreed to act as arbitrator vide para 14 of the said agreement whenever a dispute arose between the parties.4. My attention was drawn towards the facts that even in the fardbeyan it has be...
Sajid Zeya Khan and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-10-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR555(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution for the quashment of the First Information Report vide Dhanbad (Bank More) P.S. Case No. 422 of 2001 dated 6.8.2001 with consequential reliefs.2. The prosecution story in short was that the complainant-respondent No. 2 Puran Singh Chibb lodged a complaint case No. 526 of 2001 before the CJM, Dhanbad on 17.5.2001 which was forwarded to the Police Station for institution of police case under Section 156(3) Cr PC and accordingly a case was instituted as referred to herein above against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 420/406 and 379, IPC as also under Section 23 of the Hire Purchase Agreement Act. It was alleged in the Complaint Petition that the complainant O.P. No. 2 had entered into a Hire Purchase Agreement with Ashok Leyland Finance Limited on 7.12.1999 for purchase of chesis of a truck and the agreement was executed at Dhanbad Branch of the Of...
Nazrul Ansari, Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-10-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR562(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. All these three writ petitions, involving common questions, were heard at length and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Mr. Sumit Gadodia, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the respondents be directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for their appointment, as they are in displaced person category (i) and their names were included in the list of 207 persons sent by the Director Project Land Rehabilitation (DPLR), Bokaro Steel City, respondent No. 2 to the Steel Authority of India Limited-respondent No. 1, and therefore they are entitled to be considered in view of specific directions given by this Court in LPA Nos. 161 and 162 of 1996 (R) as well as in MJC No. 139 of 1999(R). He further submitted that one member of each displaced family is to be given employment.3. Referring to paragraph 25 of the judgment reported in : AIR2005SC2994 Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Ors. he further submitted that the definition of the family...
Dr. Chandra Bhushan Choudhary Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board Th ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-10-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR40(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that on the request of respondent No. 4, who happens to be the own brother of the petitioner, the Electricity Board has threatened disconnection of the electric connection being D-39C/D-4197, in the premises of the petitioner.2. Mr. Prashant Pallav, appearing for respondent No. 4 (R-4) submitted that the said electrical connection stands in the name of R-4, who is the owner of the premises in question, and he has got every right to surrender the said connection, as R-4 wants to make construction as per the sanctioned plan and without disconnection of the electric line, he is not in a position to make any construction. He further submitted that respondent No. 4 was prosecuted on the ground that he made construction in violation of the sanctioned map. He further submitted that R-4 is in part possession of the premises.3. In reply, Mr. S.K. Sinha disputed that R-4 is in part possession. He submitted th...
Sadhu Charan Sahay Vs. Hindustan Steel Works, Construction Ltd. and an ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-10-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR158(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties finally.2. Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that as per the judgment dated 18.1.2003, passed by the District Judge, in appeal, petitioner is entitled to interest on gratuity from the date of retirement i.e. 31.1.1996 till it is paid, as it was withheld wrongly by the respondents, but the District Judge wrongly held in his order dated 24.5.2006 that petitioner in entitled to interest accrued in Bank. She further submitted that petitioner is ready to pay the amounts as calculated by the respondents in letter dated 28.9.2007 (Annexure-I-A) except Rs. 20,662.66p charged as '16% simple interest per annum on damage mentioned at serial No. 2', which will come to Rs. 95,539.84p. She admitted that petitioner cannot claim the arrears of difference of salary etc.3. On the other hand, Mr. Rohit Roy, appearing for the respondents-Management, submitted that petitioner is entitled to the interest accrued in Bank, Deposit...
Shri Ram Bachan Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-10-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR126(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Both these connected matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Regarding W.P.(S) No. 622 of 2003, Mr. Pandey, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that petitioner was appointed on probation by letter dated 18.7.1969 against which he joined on 21.8.1969 which was confirmed w.e.f. 21.8.1970 by Notification dated 11.3.1977. In view of Paragraph 5(Kha) of the Circular contained in Memo No. 379 dated 16.2.1990. petitioner was to be given promotion w.e.f. 1.2.1985 but it is not known why he was given promotion w.e.f. 1.3.1989 vide Memo No. 2270 dated 25.8.1994, even though he completed more than ten years of his service on 1.2.1985 and other persons similarly situated were given promotion w.e.f. 1.2.1985. Mr. Pandey referred to the letter contained in Memo No. 1554, Ranchi dated 18.11.2002 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Science and Technology Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi to the Science and Techno...
Hari Bansh Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-10-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR124(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned J.C. to G.A. appearing for the State of Bihar are present. However, Mr. H.K. Singh, learned Standing Counsel No. 1, appearing for the State of Jharkhand, is not present, which is a sorry State of affairs of the Standing Counsel 1.2. By order dated 3.7.2006 this Court directed the Standing counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand to produce the relevant record of enquiry with regard to the enquiry conducted against the petitioner fixing the next date 12th July 2006. When on the next date fixed also the records was not produced then again by order dated 3.1.2008 the Standing counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand was directed to produce the same and fixed the case on 1.2.2008.3. On 1.2.2008 also the said record was not produced. However, on that day Mr. H.K. Singh, learned standing counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand stated that all the relevant records with regard to enquiry conducted again...
Mahesh Nand Sharma Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd. and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-10-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR142(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties finally.2. Mr. S.K. Ughal appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner should be confirmed as regular Headmaster and that he should be paid senior pay scale with effect from 1.1.1986.3. Mr. P.K. Sinha. learned senior counsel appearing for Hindustan Copper Limited, submitted that all the committee managed Schools aided by Hindustan Copper Limited (for short the Company) having been closed since July, 2002, no direction can be issued on the Company to confirm the petitioner on the post of regular Head-master.4. Regarding the next claim of the petitioner, he submitted that the post of Assistant Teacher was advertised in the Newspaper by the Company, against which the petitioner applied and was selected. Accordingly, offer of appointment was issued vide letter dated 27.1.1982, which was a fresh appointment and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that his earlier services should be counted for giving him senior pay scale. However,...
Sunil Kumar Choudhary Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-10-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR313(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing part of the Memo No. 1714 dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure-9) so far as the same relates to the petitioner whereby the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Incharge, Superintendent of Excise. Dumka-cum-Lohardaga-cum-Simdega. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the notification as contained in Memo No. 1716 dated 29.12.2007 (Annexure-9/1) whereby the respondent No. 4 has been transferred at the place of the petitioner.2. The petitioner was selected in 40th Combined Competitive Examination con ducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission and was posted as Inspector. Excise in the Department of Excise and Prohibition, Government of Bihar in the year 1997. The petitioner was given promotion to the post of Excise Superintendent by Notification No. 4251 dated 5.12.2005 in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500. He was posted as Excise Superintendent, Munger-cum-Lak-hisarai-cum-Jamui-cum-S...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »