Jharkhand Court February 2010 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.
Bihari Mahta Vs. Dhani Devi and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-26-2010
D.N. Patel, J.1. Present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by learned IIIrd Additional Munsif, Ranchi in Partition Suit No. 30 of 2003, whereby, the stage of taking evidence by the petitioner (original defendant) has been closed and, therefore, the present petitioner (original defendant) has preferred this writ petition.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner (original defendant) submitted I hat in fact the Partition Suit No. 30 of 2003 has been filed by present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 against the present petitioner. They all are nearby relatives. Plaintiffs have examined their witnesses and the defendant has examined only one witness and the stage of taking evidence has been closed down by the learned trial court vide order dated 15th July, 2008. The petitioner (original defendant) wants to examine three more witnesses and they will not consume much time and this can be over within stipulated time as granted by this Court...
Bhakta Rajendra Malakar Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-26-2010
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties.2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider and grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Sub Inspector of Police from the date his Juniors were given promotion to the aforesaid post with all consequential benefits. Further prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents to decide his seniority in his cadre pursuant to the order dated 02.12.1999 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8126 of 1998.3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed to the post of Assistant Driver Constable on 18.09.1968 and was subsequently absorbed as a Matriculate Constable vide Office Order No. 1537/69, dated 18.08.1969, Subsequently, he was transferred to the Bihar Police Radio, Patna on 01.03.1972 Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (A.S.I.) Wireless with effect from 22.12.1975.4. The petitioner states that when the persons junior to him...
Kamal Kant Sahay and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand,
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-26-2010
D.N. Patel, J.1. The present petition has been preferred mainly challenging the order, passed by respondent No. 4, dated 23rd November, 2007 (Annexure 5 to the memo of petition), whereby, the benefits given to the petitioners under Assured Career Progression, have been withdrawn.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that looking to the order at Annexure 5, it appears that for no justifiable reasons, the benefits given to the petitioners under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, with effect from 29th October, 2003, has been withdrawn, vide order dated 23rd November, 2007, without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Even otherwise also, no reasons for withdrawing the benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme have been given in the impugned orders and the reasons are to be presumed by the petitioners or by the respondents and looking to the counter affidavit, it appears that some reasons have been given that the ...
Ramjiwan Himatsingka Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-26-2010
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. This writ petition which WAS pending for final hearing before Patna High Court, was transferred to this Court alter bifurcation of the State.2. The petitioner has prayed to quash the older of the Deputy Commissioner, Dunika, communicated to him vide Annexure-4 under the signagure of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka contained in memo No. 524 dated 12/09/ 1988, informing him that lease with respect to the land mentioned in the said letter, has been cancelled since he violated the terms of the lease deed.3. The case of the petitioner is that by a registered deed of lease dated 07/04/1934, he was leased out a total area of 25 Bighas, 5 Kathas and 13 Dhurs of the land by the then Zamindar in the town of Dumka with respect to Khesra (Dag) Nos. 674, 268, 269, 270 and 444. In the said lease deed, if was mentioned that the land was being leased out to the petitioner for an Orchard and Nursery and if it was found that the same was being used for any other purpose the less...
Devendra Thakur Vs. the State of Jharkhand,
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-25-2010
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent State, pursuant to the direction contained in the last order, it is admitted that the Promotion Board/Selection Committee of the CID, Govt. of Jharkhand had found the petitioner fit for promotion from Photo Sub Inspector to the post of Photo Inspector and the Committee had communicated its recommendation to the DIG, Human Rights in favour of the petitioner on 24.12.2002. However, notwithstanding such recommendation, the petitioner's promotion could not be given since the D.G. Board did not find the petitioner fit for promotion to the rank of Inspector. The petitioner, in reply to his query as to why his name was left out from the Circular issued by the D.G. Board, was informed that there is no post of Photo Inspector in the Photo Bureau, CID, Jharkhand and hence, the petitioner's case for his promotion to the aforesaid post could not be taken up. It is further submitted that the petitioner has since retired...
Branch Manager, Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd. and the Manager (C ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-25-2010
D.N. Patel, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur, dated 2nd January, 2008 in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 132 of 2007, which is at Annexure 6 to the memo of petition, is under challenge, in this writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalat has not power, jurisdiction and authority to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and never any consent, much less in writing, has been given by the petitioners for deciding the dispute, on merits by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur. The role of the Permanent Lok Adalat is of a conciliator and not of a adjudicator. It is also vehemently submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the requirements, as per Sub-section (7) of Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, has also not been complied with, as per the decision rendered by a Division bench of this Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nig...
Yoga Lal Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand Through the Secretary, Ministry ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-25-2010
D.N. Patel, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sub-Deputy Collector in 1976 at Daltonganj, Palamau, thereafter, the petitioner appeared in 24th Batch Examination, conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission, for the post of Deputy Collector. The petitioner was also selected for the post of Deputy Collector, but, meanwhile the two different cadres namely the cadre of Sub-Deputy Collector and the cadre of Deputy Collector were merged and. a new cadre was created as Deputy Collector and, therefore, the petitioner had never obtained to be appointed as a fresh Deputy Collector as he has cleared examination, conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission as there is merger of the two posts, the petitioner will loose the seniority lb the post of Deputy Collector. Two cadres have been kept separate, distinct and different. The petitioner would have obtained to be appointed as Deputy Collector under the 24rd Batch Examination,...
Kamlakasi Jha and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-25-2010
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Since the issues involved in these writ applications are identical, they are taken up together for disposal by this common order.2. These writ applications arise out of the common order dated 30.10.1996 passed by the Appellate Authority in the individual SAR Appeals, allowing the appeals filed by the private respondents, directing restoration of the lands, under Section 71A of the CNT Act, in respect of the three appellants namely, the appellants/petitioners of WPC Nos. 910/04, 906/04 and 930/04. In the remaining two appeals while allowing the appeals of the private respondents, the Appellate Authority lad directed for assessment of compensation to be paid as per proviso to Section 71A of the Act.It may be mentioned that by the interim order dated 26.02.2004 passed in these writ applications, the operation of the impugned orders have been stayed.3. Heard Learned counsel for the parties including the counsel for the private respondents.4. From the rival submissions ...
Sudhir Pandit, Employers in Relation to the Management of the Senior S ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-25-2010
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Both these writ applications arise out of the common impugned Award dated-31.12.2002, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 162 of 1999.2. The Central Government in the concerned Department, had referred the Industrial dispute raised under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for adjudication to the lndustrial Tribunal vide its letter of reference dated-16th March, 1999.3. The terms of the reference was as follows:Whether the termination of services of the workman, Shri Sudhir Pandit by the Management of the G.P.O. Post Office, Doranda, Ranchi is legal and justified? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled?4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.5. From the rival submissions, the admitted facts of the case, which emerge are as follows:The concerned workman, was engaged as daily rated casual Mazdoor by the Management of the G.P.O., Post Officer, Doranda, Ran...
Sri Kamleshwar Pandey and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-25-2010
D.N. Patel, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the arrears of salary for the period running from 1st January, 1971 to 31st March, 1973, has not been deposited in their provident fund accounts in time and therefore, had there been prior deposition of the amount in time, the petitioners would have earned the interest upon the said amount of the provident fund and therefore, amount of interest may be ordered to be paid to the petitioners. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that let a direction may be given to respondent No. 3 to calculate the amount of interest and mike the payment, within stipulated time.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that it is true that on earlier occasion also, a Division Bench of this Court has given a direction, as stated in L.P.A. No. 651 of 2002, vide order dated 30th April, 2003, which is a firmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5803 of 2004,...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »