Court : Jharkhand
D.N. Patel, J.1. This petition has been preferred against the order passed by respondent No. 2 Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Sugarcane Development, Jharkhand, Ranchi dated 21.11.2009(Annexure-3 to the memo of petition) whereby 10% of the pension and gratuity of the present petitioner has been withheld by the Government on the ground that vigilance inquiry is going on against the present petitioner.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that in fact inquiry is going on and nothing has been concluded or decided in criminal matter against the present petitioner by any competent Court. No charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner. No inquiry has been conducted and no report has been given against the present petitioner for any misappropriation of the amount. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that under Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules,2000 unless the petitioner is found guilty in a departmental proceedin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for an order quashing the decision of the competent authority of the CCL, as indicated in the communication vide letter dated 08.08.2007 (Annexure-5) of the Personnel Manager (EE), CCL, Ranchi (Respondent No. 5), whereby a direction has been made for deducting a sum of Rs. 1,47,189/- as House Rent @10% of the basic pay for the period 19.01.1998 to 19.02.2003 for 'self lease accommodation'.A further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to refund the deducted amount to the petitioner.3. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order as being illegal and arbitrary and without jurisdiction and violative of the petitioner's right under Article 14,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.4. Facts of the petitioner's case in brief is as follows:The petitioner was appointed as Director (Personnel) vide letter of the Ministry of Coal, Government of India dated 24....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners in this writ application, have challenged the order of the Sub-Judge-I, Dhanbad passed in Title Suit No. 29 of 2005, whereby the learned court below had allowed the prayer of the plaintiff/respondent for appointment of Pleader Commissioner under the provisions of Order 26 Rule 9 CPC read with Section 151 CPC.3. It appears that earlier, this issue was finally decided by this Court vide order dated 16.11.2005 whereby, upon hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court had set aside the order of appointment of the Pleader Commissioner.However, upon an application filed by the plaintiff/respondent for review of the order dated 16.11.2005, an interim order was passed by this Court not only staying the further proceedings of the Title Suit before the court below, but for maintaining the status quo.As it appears from the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the main plea taken by the petitioners is that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
1. This writ petition had been registered in view of a letter petition submitted by one Smt. Tapsi Choudhary alleging complaint of a grave nature that although her daughter, Mousami Choudhary, had been killed in a mysterious circumstance and she had approached the police station in-charge for lodging a F.I.R, the plea had been brushed aside and no F.I.R was lodged, due to which she had approached this Court by way of a letter petition which was later registered as a writ petition. Thereafter this Court had directed the respondent authorities to record and register the F.I.R of Smt. Tapsi Choudhary and conduct investigation of the case lodged. Curiously, the F.I.R at the instance of Smt. Tapsi Choudhary has still not been registered and the Investigating Authority submitted a charge sheet only under Section 287 I.P.C, on the basis of the F.I.R registered as a case of accident at the instance of the friend of the deceased, ignoring the version of the mother of the deceased who alleged th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1.The instant Criminal Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 27.11.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar in S.T. No. 122 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 89 of 2006 arising out of Chandwa P.S. Case No. 23 of 2006 by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners for their discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed. The name of petitioner Dhananjay Nath Sahi was deleted by the order of this Court dated 25.8.2009 on his death.2. The prosecution story in short was that the informant-Officer-in-charge of Chandwa police station recorded his self statement on 26.2.2006 at about 17.30 hours narrating inter alia that on telephonic message received that some extremists had been assaulting the pilgrims who had arrived at ' Nagar temple,' he with the police party rushed there and enquired from the shopkeepers about the occurrence and only from whom he could gather that the extremists had taken away about 8/10...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.02.2004 (Annexure-9) passed by the Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in the Departmental Proceeding No. 106 of 2001, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service.A further prayer has also been made for quashing the order dated 06.08.2004 (Annexure-10) passed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Singhbhum, Kolhan Range, Chaibasa, whereby the appeal preferred against the impugned order of dismissal, was rejected.3. Facts of the petitioner's case in brief are as follows:The petitioner was working as a Homeguard. In response to the advertisement issued by the police department, he offered his candidature for selection to the post of Constable, by filing applications not only for the selection in the district police at Jamshedpur, but also in the district police at Bhagalpur.In the test pertaining to the district police at Jamsh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. It appears that despite service of notice upon the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and even after their appearance although on the date before the last, when neither of the Respondents nor their lawyer appeared on call on the last date i.e. on 11.02.2010, this case was posted for today for hearing and the Respondents/their lawyer were directed to appear and submit arguments of their own desire against the reconciliation. Today, also on repeated calls, neither the Respondents nor their lawyer has appeared, though learned Counsel for the petitioner is present.2. Under the circumstances, this writ application is taken up for hearing ex parte against the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.3. The petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for quashing the order dated-19.03.2004, passed in Title Suit No. 67 of 1995, whereby the petitioner's/plaintiff's prayer for not allowing the Respondent No. 2 to contest the suit on the ground that the suit was contested by the father of the Respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
D.N. Patel, J.1. The present petition has been preferred mainly against an order, passed by respondent No. 4 dated 22nd May, 2008, which is at Annexure 18 to the memo of petition, whereby, the services of the petitioner have been terminated, only on the ground that the petitioner has not got his Teachers Training from a recognized institution by the National Council for Teachers Education under the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act, 1993'), though the Act, 1993 came into force with effect from 1st July, 1995 and the petitioner got appointment on 28th April, 1995, as per Annexure 6 to the memo of petition, and the petitioner actually joined the services as a Teacher with effect from 2nd May, 1995 (Annexure 7 to the memo of petition). Both these dates are prior to coming into force the Act, 1993 and, therefore, the petitioner is challenging the termination order at Annexure 18 to the memo of petition.2. Learned Counsel for the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
R.K. Merathia, J.1. In WP(C) No. 3362 of 2009, petitioners being the employees of Electro Steel Integrated Ltd. ( the Company for short) have prayed for quashing the entire proceedings initiated against them under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act (BPLE Act for short) being B.P.L.E. Case No. 2 to 11 of 2009-2010, pending in the court of Collector cum Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro Forest Division, including the orders passed therein restraining them and the Company from carrying on non-forestry work in the forest area in Plot Nos. 1159, 1120 and 1389.WP(C) No. 2515 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioner company for restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the lands in question, purchased by the company, in any manner.2. As common questions are involved in both the writ petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this order.3. Submissions on behalf of the petitioners are as follows:(i) That the said proceedings under BP...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
R.R. Prasad, J.1. This writ application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 2758(M) of 2002 (T.R. No. 1865 of 2006) pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi including the order dated 26.11.2002 whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna took cognizance of the offence under Section 85(a) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. It appears that petitioner's sweet meat shop being run in the name and style of 'Sweet Corner' at Ashok Nagar, Ranchi when was inspected by the Insurance Inspector in the month of December, 1999, it was found that the employer had engaged 12 employees in the process of manufacturing of sweet meat in his shop falling within the definition of 'factory' as defined in Section 2(12)(a) of the Act and as such, the employer was liable to pay contribution for the employees for the period from April, 1999 to 30.9.2001 under Section 40 read with Section 39 of t...
Tag this Judgment!