Court : Jharkhand
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 03.8.2009 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 206 of 2008 whereby he has allowed the suit filed by the respondent-wife for a decree of divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act and dissolved the marriage between the parties.3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:The respondent-wife filed the aforementioned suit for a decree of divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. Both the appellant and the respondent are Christians and their marriage was solemnized on 30.12.1986 at Catholic Church and out of the wedlock, one female child was born in the year 1991 and one male child was born in 1996. The respondent's case was that the appellant was initially employed in Railway but subsequently after qualifying Bihar Public Service Examination, posted as District Superintendent of Education at Ramgarh. The respondent-wife alle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. By this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 9.9.2008 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench (Circuit Court at Ranchi) in O.A. No. 49/09 whereby the Tribunal disallowed the prayer of the petitioner for payment of arrears as well as current pension.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:In the year 1986, the petitioner was appointed as EDA in the Branch Post Office in the district of Giridih. According to the petitioner he became entitled and eligible for promotion to Group D cadre mail peon in the year 1990, but the promotion matter was kept pending by the respondents and did not conduct D.P.C. However, petitioner was promoted to Group D cadre by the D.P.C. held on 28.6.96. Petitioner's case is that the promotion matter was kept in abeyance by the respondents as a result several persons who were junior to the petitioner were considered for promotion much earlier than the petitioner. Petitioner ultimately supe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. No one appears on behalf of the respondents inspite of service of notice.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 4.3.1998 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hazaribagh in W.C. Case No. 21 of 1993 whereby a sum of Rs. 72,441/- has been awarded to the claimant/respondents for the death of one Jhubar Mahto in the mines area in course of employment.3. The relevant facts in brief are that the claimant/ respondents filed application before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation alleging inter alia that on 7.2.1985 deceased Jhubar Mahto while working in the Open Mines owned by the appellant died because of fall of heavy stone of ten(10) tones. A criminal case was also instituted under Section 304A and 34 I.P.C. It appears that in the criminal case, the accused persons were finally acquitted by the trial Court in terms of judgment dated 1.7.92, thereafter, widow of the dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29/03/2000 (Annexure 3), passed by the Special Officer, Ranchi, the appellate order dated 03/09/2001 (Annexure 4), passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and the revisional order dated 14/03/2002 (Annexure 5), passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, whereby, the application filed by respondent Nos. 6 to 8 under Section 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act for restoration of the lands, was allowed.2. The facts, in short, are that the lands of Khata No. 85 measuring 8.29 acres was recorded in the names of Tona Oraon, Cherga Oraon, Letho Oraon and Jhuba Oraon. Tona Oraon and Letho Oraon died issueless. Cherga Oraon had one daughter Nagia Orain, who was married to one Jata Oraon. The said Jata Oraon was taken in as 'Ghar Damad' by Cherga Oraon. According to the petitioner, as per Oraon customary law Jata Oraon became the legal heir and successor of Cherga Oraon. The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard.2. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ application is now confined to the relief for directing the respondents to pay them the salary with effect from 16.05.2001, till the date when they were absorbed in service. Initially the main prayer of the petitioners was for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to absorb them in service. During the pendency of this writ application, the petitioners have been absorbed in service under the respondents but their claim for salary for the period from 16.05.2001 till the date of their absorption, has been refused on the ground that the petitioners did not work during the aforesaid period and therefore on the principle of 'no work no pay', they are not entitled to claim salary for the said period.3. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that at the time of their absorption, it was clearly mentioned to the petitioners that their absorption in service in the various departments of the State Government was b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Both these writ applications based on identical facts and common grounds, are taken up together for disposal.2. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondents.3. The petitioner Prafulla Kumar Jha in WPS No. 140 of 2007 has prayed for quashing the order dated 24.7.2006 (Annexure-7), passed by the Disciplinary Authority whereby, the petitioner was terminated from service. Further prayer has also been made for quashing the order dated 14.11.2006 (Annexure-5), passed by the Appellate Authority whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority, was dismissed.The petitioner Sanjay Kumar Singh in WPS No. 218 of 2007 has challenged the order dated 19.6.2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority whereby, the petitioner's service was terminated. Challenge is also made to the order dated 12.9.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for quashing the order dated-29.04.2003 (Annexure-6), passed by the Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum, (Respondent No. 4), whereby the punishment of dismissal from service was awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated-04.02.2004 (Annexure-8), passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order of his dismissal, was dismissed.3. The main grounds on which the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders are as follows:(i) The departmental proceeding was conducted against the petitioner in a most illegal and arbitrary manner without affording opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and even the material witnesses were not examined.(ii) The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are against the weight of evidence on record and perverse and based on co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard.2. Challenge, in this writ application, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated-22.02.2007, passed in Title Appeal No. 19 of 2004 by the 02nd Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur, whereby the prayer of the petitioner/appellant for adducing additional evidence in the Appeal, under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C., has been rejected.3. Facts of the petitioner's case, stated briefly, are as follows:The petitioner/plaintiff filed a Title Suit vide Title Suit No. 13 of 2000 before the Court of Munsif at Ghatshila for a decree for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit property, besides confirmation of possession and alternatively, for recovery of possession.His claim was based primarily on a Sale Deed purportedly executed in his favour by one Badal Dolai and which was claimed to have been registered on 03.06.1998 before the Sub-Registrar, Jamshedpur.The Respondent No. 2 being the defendant No. 1, had contested the cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 22.12.2009 passed by the Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi being Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, whereby he has rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Section 167(2)of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further for a direction to the Special Court to grant bail to the petitioner under the provision of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. It appears that on the basis of complaint from one Shri Kumar Vinod, a vigilance case was registered by the Vigilance Department being Vigilance Case No. 26 of 2008 corresponding to Special Case No. 32 of 2008 for contravention of Sections 406, 409, 420, 423, 424, 465, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 11/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner and others. On the basis of the said complaint, the Director of Vigila...
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 a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to revise and fix his pay and other allowances as per the order of his promotion under ACP Scheme as contained in the order dated 14.07.2005 of the Superintending Engineer, Works Circle, REO, Dumka.A further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to revise the pension and other retiral benefits as per the revised pay scale of the petitioner arrived upon revision in accordance with the promotion given to him under the ACP Scheme and commutation of pension thereon and further for a direction for payment of difference amounts of pension and other retiral benefits and arrears thereon arising due to revision of pension and other retiral benefits with statutory and penal interest forthwith.3. From the admitted facts it appears that the petitioner was posted as a Draughtsman Grade-II in the office of the Superintending Eng...
Tag this Judgment!