Jharkhand Court August 2013 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.
Abdul Ansari Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-01-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5864 of 2013 Abdul Ansari .... Petitioner(s) Versus State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party Coram : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY For the petitioner (s): Mr. Shailendra Jit For the opposite party : Addl.P.P. 01.08.2013 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is accused in connection with Patratu (Barkakana) PS case No. 98 of 2012 for the offence registered under sections 385/386/376/420/467/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the accused persons who are henchmen of known criminal Sushil Srivastava had collected his SIM Card and have been using the same for demanding rangdari from businessmen and contractor(s) of the locality. It is submitted that the main accused Sushil Srivastava and other co-accused Hansraj Kumar have been granted bail vide BA No. 8560 of 2012. & BA No. 8617 of 2012 respectively. Allegation against this petitioner is similar; rather, it is bet...
Tej Narayan Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-01-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2770 of 2011 Tej Narayan Jha .. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others .. Respondents ----- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI ----- For the Petitioner - Mr. S.K.Pandey For the Respondents - Mr. J.C to G.P-II ----- 5/1.8.2013 In the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing Memo No.167 dated 29th December, 2004, whereby the petitioner's salary has been refixed with effect from 1st April, 1986 instead of 1.1.1982. It has been submitted that the petitioner was duly appointed as per the circular and the order of the Government. The petitioner got his salary from 1.1.1982. He is, thus, entitled for fixation of his salary with effect from the said date. However, by the impugned letter, the respondents have arbitrarily shifted the date of fixation of the petitioner's salary with effect from 1st April, 1986 by Clause-3 of the said letter. Similarly situated persons, aggrieved by such shifting, namely, Tark...
- ‹ Prev
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- Next ›