Kolkata Court April 2012 Judgments
Sri Tarit Kumar Karak Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
Nishita Mhatre, J. 1. Aggrieved by the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench dated 10th July 2007, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. On 29th June 1992, the petitioner was employed as a Trainee Assistant Driver (Electrical). The training period was for 18 months. According to the petitioner, his training period was curtailed to six months by an order issued on 18th February 1993. He was then put in independent charge to run a locomotive as an Assistant Driver from 7th March 1993. The petitioner met with an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. As a result of this accident the petitioner was medically de-categorised w.e.f. 4th November 1993. On the basis of the policy of the Railways to employ drivers who have been medically de-categorised for other work, the petitioner was employed as a clerk from 7th February 1994. According to the petitioner he is entitled to running allowance as he was paid this allowance while he was working as...
Tag this Judgment!Md. MainuddIn Mondal and Another Vs. the State of West Bengal and Othe ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
Nishita Mhatre, J. 1. The petitioners have impugned the judgement and order of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal dated 27th January 2012 passed in original Application O.A. No. 1139 of 2010. The application filed by the private respondents that is respondent Nos. 6 and 7 has been allowed and the State has been directed to arrange for a fresh recruitment process for the post of Lower Division Clerks in the Registration Office of Nadia. 2. Twelve posts of Lower Division Clerks in the Registration Office of the District of Nadia were vacant and, therefore, the District Registrar called for names of eligible candidates from the District Employment Exchange in 2006. After scrutiny of the names, the written test was held in October 2006. The petitioners participated in the written test along with other eligible candidates. In the year 2010, the petitioners moved an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal being O. A...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Subimal Sarkar Vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
NISHITA MHATRE, J. 1. The challenge in this petition is to the judgement and order of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 306 of 2011 rejecting the petitioner’Section claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. 2. The petitioner’s father was employed with the respondents and posted in the Bhatpara State General Hospital. He died in harness on 26th, January 2003 leaving behind his wife, two sons including the petitioner and two daughters. The family received the dues payable to them after employee’s death. They were paid Provident Fund of `. 1,20,000/-, Gratuity of `. 54,000/- and `. 12,000/- on account of Insurance. Besides this the widow was being paid family pension of `. 3,800/ p.m. She continues to draw this amount. The elder brother of the petitioner is earning about `. 1,500/- p.m. 3. The petitioner applied for appointment in a Group-D post on compassionate grounds in accordance with the scheme available for employees of the State Government...
Tag this Judgment!Pranab Banerjee and Others Vs. Smt. Bithika Mahato and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the order dated January 18, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Purulia in Title Suit No. 107 of 2009 thereby rejecting an application filed by the defendants for restitution of the electricity at their premises. The short fact is that the plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and other reliefs against the petitioners in respect of the suit property as described in the schedule of the plaint. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff / opposite party herein that he had purchased the suit property from the previous owner, i.e., the proforma / opposite party no.2 by a registered deed of sale and the defendants had been in permissive possession of the suit property under the previous owner. The defendants/ petitioners herein have paid charges for electricity contending, inter alia, that they are in poss...
Tag this Judgment!Anannya Chowdhury Vs. Sm. Gouri Sirkar and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
J.N. Patel, C.J. Instead of dealing with the application for stay with consent of learned Counsel for the parties we propose to hear out the appeal itself by treating it as on Day’s List. In a suit for partition and administration of the estate of late Manmotha Bhushan Sirkar, the leasehold right of a shop room on the eastern side of the ground floor in present municipal premises No.124/1, Bepin Behari Ganguly Street, (originally known as Boubazar Street), Kolkata-700012 forms one of the assets. During the pendency of the partition suit, a receiver came to be appointed by the Court and the said shop room was under the possession of the receiver. By an order dated April 21,1964 the Court granted a leave to the original plaintiff no.1 to occupy the said shop room upon payment of specified consideration money per month to be paid to the receiver on condition “ not sublet or part with possession of any portion of the said shop room”. Thereafter, on April 9, 1987 the Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Provat Kumar Mitra Vs. Smt. Sudakshina Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the Order No.64 dated April 17, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Controller, Sealdah in Misc. Case No.11 of 2006 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (henceforth shall be called ‘CPC’) arising out of an Ejectment Suit No.360 of 2005. The plaintiff/petitioner herein instituted a suit being Ejectment Suit No.360 of 2005 for recovery of possession, mesne profit and other reliefs under Section 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 on the ground of reasonable requirement against the defendant/opposite party before the learned Additional Controller at Sealdah. Ultimately, the said suit was decreed ex parte. Thereafter, the defendant/tenant filed a Misc. Case being Misc. Case No.11 of 2006 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC for vacating the ex parte decree. The plaintiff/petitioner herein contested the said Misc. Case. Upon consideration of the materials-on-...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Mukherjee Vs. the State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against judgment and order dated August 30, 2007 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 1416 of 2004. The writ petitioner was a constable of the Bengal Police. The writ petitioner was posted at Dum Dum under Sealdah Government Railway Police District. A chargesheet was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Government Railway Police, Sealdah, on July 3, 2003, against this writ petitioner. He was charged with gross misconduct, indiscipline and dereliction of duty unbecoming of a member of the police force. It was alleged in the charge-sheet that he was unauthorisedly absent from Dum Dum Government Railway Police Station from June 1, 2003 without taking any leave or permission from the Officer-in-Charge or any competent authority. Thus, he hampered the government duties. It was stated that he was a habitual absentee and that several proceedings were dra...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and Others Vs. Smt. Meena Oraon and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
Nishita Mhatre, J. 1. The order impugned in this writ petition has been passed in O.A. No. 165 of 2010 by the Central Administrative Tribunal Calcutta Bench on 16th September 2011. The application filed by the respondents under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act for compassionate appointment of the respondent No. 2 has been allowed by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by that order the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows :- (i) Muskoo Oraon was employed as a Senior Track man. He died-inharness on 12th May 2004. His wife Smt. Mangri Oraon died on 3rd April 1988. However during the subsistence of his first marriage, the deceased employee married respondent No. 1. They had three children that is the petitioner No. 2, who is their son and two daughters. A daughter, who was born from the first marriage of the deceased employee, is married. (ii) After the death of Musko...
Tag this Judgment!Sahadeb Ghosh Vs. the State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against judgment and order dated January 14, 2010 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 1512 of 2009. 2. By the order impugned, the said tribunal disposed of the said original application, inter alia, holding that the tribunal was unable to issue any order directing the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment when police verification report was not submitted in favour of the writ petitioner. 3. The facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are as follows: (a) The authorities declared vacancies for appointment to the post of constable in the West Bengal Police for the district of Hooghly. The petitioner was one of the applicants. He participated in the selection process in terms of the order of the said tribunal dated October 23, 2008 passed in Original Application No. 9025 of 2008. (b) The provisionally selected c...
Tag this Judgment!ApeluddIn Sk Vs. the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Lt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-2012
The Court : The petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated July 9, 2010 is seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to give him supply of electricity to his premises in question. In para.2 the petitioner has stated that he submitted the requisite application for supply of electricity on February 15, 2008. Case stated by him in para.5 is as follows: “5. Your petitioner moved office of the respondent authority and came to know that in case of invisible reason the respondent no-4 failed to send any line’Section man to give effect the connection. Your petitioner personally met with the respondent no 4 and respondent no-2 to know about the fate of service connection number they stated that due to arrear dues of elder brother of petitioner they did not able to give connection. Petitioner asked that the said brother entitled valid connection till date or not they did not say any thing for that reason petitioner made a prayer on 09.10.2009 addressing the respondent no-2 and 3 a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »