Jharkhand Court January 2009 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.
Janki Prasad Sharma Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR919
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the State.1. The petitioner retired from the service of the State Government on 31.01.2002 as Correspondence Clerk, working in the Public Health Department. His grievance is that after his retirement, by an office order dated 15.01.2005, contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition, the first time bound promotion given to him on 19.2.1992 w.e.f. 05.11.1989, has illegally been cancelled and consequent thereto that his pension has wrongly been fixed at a lower scale.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the case of 'Nakul Raut v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. In C.W.J.C. No. 1998 of 2001' disposed of on 10.09.2001, it has specifically been held by this Court that after retirement and after more than three years of the date of promotion, it is not open to the State to raise the question of legality and propriety of promotion, which has gran...
Shiv Shankar Vs. Central Coalfields Limited and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-05-2009
Reported in: [2009(121)FLR688]
R.R. Prasad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that late Nageshwar Mahto- father of the petitioner, who was under the employment of C.C.L. died in harness on 13.05.2002. Thereupon, the widow of late Nageshwar Mahto, filed an application before the authority for giving employment to her son, the petitioner, on compassionate ground, but the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the authority on the plea that the name of the petitioner does not find mentioned in the L.T.C. Option and L.T.C. Form 'A' and at the same time, his name also does not find mentioned in the Gratuity Nomination Form and that entry made in the service excerpts showing the petitioner as the son of late Nageshwar Mahto, is doubtful as the entry made in this respect is by different ink and different handwriting but none of the ground in the facts and circumstances of the case is tenable for ...
Arun Kumar Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jan-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(57)BLJR917
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.1. Though by order dated 07.04.2006, the respondents-State was directed to file counter affidavit, but no such counter affidavit has been filed as yet. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that he is prepared to argue the case on merit even without any counter affidavit since counter affidavit would not be required in the fact and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, this writ petition is being disposed of with the consent of the parties at the stage of admission itself.2. The petitioner was working as an Assistant in the Sub Divisional office at Sahebganj. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him for certain charges and on the basis thereof he was awarded certain punishment vide memo No. 13 dated 04.01.1997. The petitioner challenged the said order of punishment before the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3506 of 1997. The Patna High Court by its order dated 04.01.1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›