Jharkhand Court April 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.
indar Sahu and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-30-2010
D.N. Patel, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that despite notice was issued by this Court, under registered cover with acknowledgment, upon respondent No. 6 vide order dated 4th January, 2010 and despite the fact that the petitioners have deposited necessary requisites amount, neither acknowledgment card nor undelivered registered cover has been returned to this High Court. Thus, the respondent is unserved, even on today, and therefore, the matter is to be adjourned, from time to time.2. In view of this submission and looking to the fact that the Postal Department have been failed to perform their duties, since long, though notice under registered cover with acknowledgment have given to them for serving upon the concerned respondent, this notice has not been served. On earlier occasion also, the order has been passed by this Court about this aspect of the matter. Copies of the earlier orders have also been sent to the Chief Postmaster General of the State of Jharkhand...
Pranab Kumar Ambasta and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-30-2010
Sushil Harkauli, J.1. The petitioner in the leading writ petition No. 2095 of 2002 was appointed as daily wage worker in 1984 and continued upto September, 1999 when his service was terminated and since then he has not been working. The writ petition was filed in the year 2002 claiming that he should be continued as daily wage worker and should be considered for regularisation.2. The petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment dated 07.6.2001 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3031 of 1999(R), a copy of which has been enclosed as annexure-5 to the leading writ petition. By that judgment a learned Single Judge directed the respondent authority to absorb/regularise the services of that writ-petitioner provided he was still working in terms of his appointment letter. (emphasis mine)3. The learned Single Judge in the said Judgment dated 07.6.2001 has recorded at two places that the petitioner of that case was still working on Class-Ill post, having been appointed on daily wage basis with effect fro...
Ruby Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
D.N. Patel, J.1. The present petition has been preferred against an order, passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Hussainabad, Palamau dated 22nd September, 2009, which is at Annexure 5 to the memo of petition, whereby the services of the present petitioner as Anaganbari Sevika has been put to an end.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that this is a second. round of litigation. Previously, an order was passed by the concerned officer, without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, without assigning any reasons, worth the name, and without giving any show cause notice and, therefore, the previously filed writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 115 of 2009 was allowed by this Court vide detailed speaking order dated 12th May, 2009 and ultimately, a direction was given by this Court that the Child Development Project Officer shall decide the claim of the present petitioner once again afresh, without being influenced by the order, passed by the...
R.K. Thakur Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Through the Secretary, Minstr ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for the following relief (s).i. For quashing the order dated 1.11.2002 (Annexure-7) passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Respondent No. 4) whereby, the petitioner was dismissed from service.ii. For quashing the entire departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner.iii. For quashing the Appellate Order dated 13.05.2003 (Annexure-9) passed by the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 3) whereby, by making a partial modification of the punishment of dismissal, the Appellate Authority has though recalled the order of dismissal, but reduced the punishment by way of reduction in lower rank of Sub-Inspector.iv. For quashing the Revisional Order dated 26.8.2003 (Annexure-13) passed by the Revisional Authority whereby, petitioner's prayer for regularization of service has been rejected.3. Facts of the petitioner's case in brief, are as follows:The petitioner was appointed on the po...
Birsa Oraon Vs. the State of Jharkhand,
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The petitioner, who was a police constable, has been dismissed from service after a departmental proceeding by an order as contained in Annexure-8, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Lohardaga holding that the charges against the petitioner was established. Even the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner against his dismissal from service has been dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chhotanagpur Range, Ranchi vide his order dated 29/05/2004, contained in Annexure-9 to the writ application.2. These are the two orders, which are under challenge in this writ application.3. While the petitioner was posted at Lohardaga in the year 2001, a criminal case was instituted against him and two others at the instance of one Jhirgi Oraine wherein she alleged that the petitioner committed rape on her on several occasions on false pretext of marriage. The case was registered under Section 376, 417 and 120 B IPC. The petitioner was put under suspe...
Dharmdeo Prasad Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner moved this Court earlier in W.P.(S) No. 2730 of 2004 making his grievance that his pension was wrongly fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 4,000 - 6,000 in place of Rs. 5,000 - 8,000.The said Writ petition was disposed of by directing the Deputy Commissioner to pass an appropriate order within two months in accordance with law regarding fixation of pension of the petitioner, which was pending before him since 2001.3. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order on 14.09.2004, as contained in Annexure-8, whereby, the claim of the petitioner for fixing his pension in the scale of Rs. 5,000 - 8,000 has been allowed w.e.f. 01.02.2000 and not w.e.f. 01.01.1996, as claimed by the petitioner.4. The petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 14.09.2004, as contained in Annexure-8, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, in this writ petition claiming the aforesaid fixation of pay ...
Kedar Gope Vs. General Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Assi ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
D.N. Patel, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is challenging the qualification fixed by respondent No. 1 for the post of Attendant-cum-Junior Technician in Steel Authority of India Limited, as the petitioner is not having a matriculation/I.T.I. qualification, which is required for the aforesaid posts, as per public advertisement dated 11' October, 2008/1st September, 2008 (Annexure-4 to the memo of the petition).2. Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition, for the following facts and reasons:(i) It appears that the present petitioner is working as a contractor's employee, with respondent No. 1 and having Standard-VII pass qualification.(ii) It appears that the petitioner expects to be an Attendant-cum-Junior Technician in respondent No. 1, but, the advertisement published by respondent No. 1 at Annexure-4 requires a minimum qualification as ...
Lallan Prasad Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd.,
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The petitioner had moved this Court earlier by filing a writ petition being W.P.S. No. 6707/2005 stating therein that he took voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31/03/1997 from the service of the respondent No. 1 Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro. He claims that as per the recommendation of the pay revision Committee which came into its effect from 01/01/1996, he was entitled to the difference of pay as per the revised pay scale. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by giving direction to the General manager, Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited to consider the claim of the petitioner with regard to the payment of difference of pay and other benefits as per the revised pay scale and take a decision within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.2. The petitioner made representation along with a copy of the said order vide Annexure-5 to the General Manager, Hindustan Steel Wo...
Devanand Prasad Soni @ Devanand Soni and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkha ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.3.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 283 of 1999, whereby the appellant No. 10, namely, Mallik Prasad Soni has been found guilty for committing offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for the said offence for a period of 10 years, whereas rests of 9 appellants, namely, Devanand Prasad Soni @ Devanand Soni, Sewa Prasad Soni, Bhuneshwar Prasad, Dilip Kumar Soni, Basanti Devi, Chandrika Devi, Mala Devi, Madhuri Devi and, Raju Prasad Soni have been found guilty only under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 2 years.2. In short, the prosecution case as per the first information report registered on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Madhusudan Verma (P.W.5) is that his niece Deepa Devi was married with the ...
Paitrus Ekka Vs. the State of Jharkhand and the Accountant General
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
D.N. Patel, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had served in the State of Bihar as Sub Inspector and he retired on 29th February, 2004 from the State of Bihar, especially from Patna Special Branch, Bihar and now, the petitioner is staying within the State of Jharkhand and he wants pension from the Treasury office of Lohardaga, State of Jharkhand and therefore, the present petition has been preferred.2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that necessary information have already been given by the Accountant General Office, State of Bihar to the Accountant General, State of Jharkhand, so as to make the payment of the pension, from the State of Jharkhand.3. Learned Counsel for the respondents-State submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition, looking to Sub Article (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as no cause of action, much less, any part of the action has been arisen, within the ter...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »