Patna Court February 1999 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.
Kumar Varun Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
R.A. Sharma, J.1. Being aggrieved by the two orders of the same date i.e., 17.9.1998, passed by the State Government under Sub-section (7) of Section 23 of the Jharkhand Area Autonomous Council Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) removing the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Interim Council and the Members of the Interim Executive Council, the petitioner, who claims to be the Spokes Person of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and a member of the said Interim Executive Council, has filed this Writ Petition. In the Writ Petition, the State of Bihar, Smt. Rabri Devi, the Chief Minister of the State, the Secretary to the Governor, the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Shri M.P. Ajmera, Deputy Secretary, Planning and Development, Patna, and the Jharkhand Area Autonomous Council (hereinafter referred to as the JAAC) have been impleaded as respondent Nos. 1 to 6, respectively.2. Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 have filed counter-affidavit sworn by Sri M.P. Ajmera, Deputy Secretary, ...
Ram Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-01-1999
J.N. Dubey, J.1. Petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay his retiral benefits.2. The case of the petitioner is that he retired from the post of Section Officer, Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar on August 31, 1995 but has not been paid his entire retiral benefits. The case of the respondents is that the retiral benefits of the petitioner have been withheld for his committing embezzlement during the period 1984-91. Their further case is that a F.I.R. in this regard has also been lodged against the petitioner on April 30, 1998 and, therefore, he is not entitled for any relief.3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has not yet been found guilty of any misconduct either in the disciplinary proceedings or in the criminal proceedings and, therefore, the respondents are not legally justified in withholding his retiral bene...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›