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.
Sanjay Kumar Pandey and ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Through Join ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-25-2010
R.K. Merathia, J.1. This writ petition hay been filed by the petitioners for a direction on the respondents to issue them appointment letters for the post of Constable (G.D.) on the ground that they have qualified in all the test/examinations2. It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that advertisement in question was published inviting the applications to the Constable (G.D.) from the candidates belonging to Bihar and Jharkhand State. Petitioners, being residents of Jharkhand, applied against such advertisement and they passed all test/examinations and there was no irregularity or deviation in such process so far as petitioners are concerned but even then they have not been given appointment and for that no reasons have been assigned. It is further submitted that instead of issuing appointment letters to the petitioners again advertisement had been issued on 6.7.2009 for filling up the said posts which was challenged by the petitioners by tiling I.A. 2584 of 2009 as petitioners might...
Employers in Relation to the Management of Sudamdih Area of Bharat Cok ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-25-2010
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioner, being the management of Sumadih area of M/s BCCL in Eastern Jharia Area, has in this writ application challenged award dated 20.05.2003 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad, in reference case No. 23/1996 whereby, while answering the reference in favour of the workman, the Tribunal had directed the management to allow the concerned workman to resume his duty and to pay him 50% back wages with effect from 1978.3. The terms of reference of the dispute as made by the Central Government to the Tribunal for adjudication is as follows:Whether the Union is justified in demanding from the management of Pathardih Colliery of BCCL resumption of his services retrospectively with effect from 1978 of Sri Umapada Thakur, Explosives Carrier? If so, to what benefit the concerned workman is entitled and from which date?4. The case of the workman is pleaded by him before the Tribunal was that being employed as an Explosive Carri...
Damodar Valley Corporation Vs. the State of Jharkhand, Through the Sec ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-25-2010
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and with their consent this application is disposed of at the stage of admission.2. Challenge as made by the petitioner D.V.C. in this writ application is to the notification dated 23.06.2004 (Annexure-7) whereby the appropriate Government has prohibited the employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work relating to colony cleaning job and coal feeding job in the Bokaro Thermal Power Station, Bokaro and in the Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura with effect from the date of publication of the notification.3. The challenge is made inter-alia on the following grounds:(i) Before issuing the notification of prohibition, the State Government has not considered the essential conditions specified under Section 10(2) Of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).(ii) The principles of natural justice have not been followed causing prejudice to the petitioner i...
Arjun Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-25-2010
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for quashing the order dated 7.11.1998 (Annexure-11) issued under the signature of the Adjutant, which order, the petitioner claims to be an order of his discharge from service, passed under Army Rule 13(3) Items III (V). A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to give an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the charges levelled, if any, against him and also to reinstate him in services with all consequential benefits.3. As informed, the petitioner had earlier filed a writ application vide CWJC No. 5162 of 2002 before the Patna High Court, which was dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction on 17.12.2003, where-after, he has filed the present writ application.4. The petitioner was appointed as Signal Man Sipoyee in the Indian Army on 25.9.1985 and initially posted at Leh, Laddakh. Upon his last transfer, he was posted at Deepatoli Cantonment at Ranchi. By order dated 7.11.199...
Kamod Prasad Sinha Vs. Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and with their consent, this application is disposed of at the stage of admission.2. Petitioner's prayer in this writ application is for quashing the letter dated 01.06.2005 (Annexure-8) purporting to declare thereby that the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years would not be available to the petitioner.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant under the respondent Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. Though initially as per the service conditions, the age of retirement of the employees of the Corporation was 58 years, but by a circular issued by the State Government on 24.03.2005 (Annexure-3), the age of superannuation was enhanced from 58 years to 60 years for the Government employees. The respondent Corporation also was required to adopt the circular of the State Government and extend the benefit of enhanced age of superan...
Lucy Marandi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
D.N. Patel, J.1. I have heard Mr. Din Dayal Saha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, who has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sevika with effect from 26th June, 2007, which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of petition, thereafter, the petitioner had undergone training, successfully and the training certificate is also annexed at Annexure-2 to the memo of petition, thereafter, the petitioner has worked successfully for several months, for which, even salary has also been paid to the petitioner and the services of the petitioner have been terminated by respondent No. 5 vide order dated 22nd April, 2008 (Annexure-3 to the memo of petition) without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and without giving any notice to the petitioner. Looking to the impugned order, it appears that some inquiry was conducted, but, the petitioner was never given any notice by the inquiry officer nor the copy of the inquiry report was given to the petitioner. Likewise, th...
Kaushik Aditya and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
R.R. Prasad, J.1. Though this writ application was filed on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 Kaushik Aditya and petitioner No. 2 Paramita Aditya for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 7.10.2009 passed by Sri Uttam Anand, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in Complaint case No. 3393 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioners but at the time of hearing, submission was advanced on behalf of the petitioner; that he will confine his prayer so far petitioner No. 2 is concerned and will not press the application so far petitioner no 1 is concerned. Accordingly, parties were heard.2. The facts hading to this writ application are that the complainant, Eastern Travels Private Limited represented through its Chief Accountant lodged a complaint case stating therein that the complainant company is engaged in a business relating to travel a...
Tapan Kumar Chand Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
R.R. Prasad, J.1. This writ application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of complaint case bearing No. C-403 of 2008 (T.R. No. 917 of 2009) including the order dated 10.2.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner and others.2. The facts loading to this case are that the complainant-respondent No. 2, a permanent employee of Central Coalfield Limited working as Pump Khalasi at Saunda 'D' Colliery, Police Station Patraru, District-Ramgarh, filed a complaint stating therein that for the benefit of the workers working in the said colliery Karamchari Sakh Sahyog Samity Saunda 'D' Colliery was established, of which Project Officer used to be the Chairman whereas at the relevant point of time, one Ashok Kumar, official of the Patratu Block was In-charge Secretary of the said Co-operative S...
Rita Pratiwanti Hembrom @ Rita Pritiwanti Hembrom @ Robeda Bibi Vs. th ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
D.N. Patel, J.1. I have heard Mi Ajit Kumar and Mr. Din Dayal Saha, learned Counsels for the petitioner, who have vehemently submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sevika vide appointment letter dated 26th June, 2007. The said appointment letter is at Annexure-2 to the memo of petition. It is also submitted by learned Counsels for the petitioner that, thereafter, the petitioner was working as Anganbari Sevika and she was also paid salary by the concerned respondent authorities and, thereafter, the services of the petitioner have been terminated by respondent No. 5 vide order dated 22nd April, 2008. The said termination order is at Ant excurse to the memo of petition, which is under challenge. No notice, no hearing has been given by the respondents before the termination of the services of the petitioner. The so-called inquiry, which is alleged to hive taken place is also an ex-parte inquiry and the inquiry officer has not given any hearing and any notice to the petiti...
Satyendra Kumar Ram Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
D.N. Patel, J.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been appointed on compassionate ground as Clerk in Registration Department of the Respondents-the State of Bihar on 16th November, 2006, and the petitioner wants mutual inter-State transfer and some body is ready from Bihar to come in Jharkhand and the petitioner, who was appointed, in the Jharkhand State, is ready to go in the State of Bihar and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred. The respondents have brushed aside the representation of the petitioner without any justifiable reasons.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the respondents who has submitted that there is no legal vested rights in the petitioner to get this type of mutual inter-State transfer. It is also vehemently submitted by learned Counsel for the State of Jharkhand that the person who comes from the State of Bihar to flu State of Jharkhand shall have to loose his all seniority and no body knows whether that officer...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »