Patna Court January 2002 Judgments
Sri Krishna Mohan Mandal Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. Orders, as contained in Annexures 7 and 8 are under challenge in this writ application.3. Vide order, as contained in Annexure 7 pay scale of the petitioner has been revised and he has been put to a lower scale, whereas by order, as contained in Annexure 8, second time-bound promotion given to the petitioner has been cancelled and direction has been issued to realize the excess payment made to the petitioner.4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that only after superannuation of the petitioner these two orders were issued by the authorities and that also without affording him an opportunity of being heard, as required under the principles of natural justice.5. It appears that vide order dated 1.9.2000 this Court stayed the operation of the orders, as contained in Annexures 7 and 8 and directed the State Government to file a counter-affidavit. Till date excess amount paid to the petitioner has not been real...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Prasad Singh and anr. Vs. Satya Narayan Singh and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Radha Mohan Prasad, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the order dated 30th June, 1995 passed by the District Judge, Purnia in Title Appeal No. 35 of 1993, whereby and whereunder the lower appellate Court has not found any justified reason to condone the abnormal delay of over three years and consequently declined to admit the appeal because it is hopelessly time barred by over three years.2. Learned Counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of this second appeal against the impugned order as, according to him, there has been no adjudication on merit of the appeal determining the rights of the parties to the matters in controversy and, as such, it is not a decree against which the second appeal lies under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of this, learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ratansing v. Vijaysing AIR 2001 S.C. 279.3. Or the othe...
Tag this Judgment!Tirupati Balajee Sugar and Co. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
R.S. Garg, J.1. The parties are finally heard.2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 6-2-1999 passed by the Cane Commissioner and order dated 10-7-1997 passed by the Secretary, Cane Department, Bihar, has come to this Court.3. The undisputed facts, in a nutshell are that the respondent intervenor Riga Sugar Company is a licenced Sugar Factory at Riga in the Districtof Sitamarhi. The petitioner made an application to the Cane Commissioner for grant of a licence for establishment of a Khandsari Factory. The present intervenor objector submitted his objections to the grant of the licence but the Cane Commissioner after hearing the parties recorded finding in favour of the present petitioner and directed grant of the licence. The said grant order was challenged before the appellate authority and after being unsuccessful, came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6009 of 1997. After arguing the petition for sometime the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition ena...
Tag this Judgment!Jyotirindra Roy Sharma Vs. the National thermal Power Corporation Ltd. ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
R.N. Prasad, J.1. The petitioner has filed the writ petition for quashing the order dated 30-11-1999 passed by the General Manager, N.T.P.C. Kanalgaon, respondent No. 6, whereby punishment of withholding one increment of pay without cumulative effect has been inflicted upon the petitioner.2. The petitioner is an employee of respondent-Corporation. During the period 1989-90, he was posted as Engineer (Materials). In the year 1997, a departmental proceedings was initiated against the petitioner. The charge-sheet, Annexere-4, was furnished to the petitioner. The charge was that the petitioner without obtaining | approval of the competent authority placed purchase order (PO) No. FS: 42: MD: 02; 204 (Levy)/P.O.: 8-A02:1313 dated February 02,1989 on ACC. He also advised Sh. S.K. Bhattacharya, the then Sr. AO, FSTPP, vide I.O.M. No. FS: 42: MD: 02:204 (Levy) dated February 02,1989 to release an amount ofRs. 17,16,012 - to ACC through a Demand Draft only, as the advance payment for supply of...
Tag this Judgment!Domni Devi Vs. Dhrub Kumar Lal and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
S.K. Katriar, J.1. The objector in the execution proceedings is the petitioner. This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 13-6-2001, passed by the learned Execution Munsif, Gaya, in Misc. Case No. 6 of 2001 {Dhrub Kumar v. Domni Devi), with respect to the proceedings in Execution Case No. 27 of 1998, whereby the petitioner's application under Order XXI, Rule 97, CPC has been rejected.2. Parvatia Devi and Satiya Devi were full sisters and the joint owners of the suit property. The northern portion was recorded in the name of Satiya Devi and was registered as Holding No. 40. The southern portion of the suit property was recorded in the name of Parvatia Devi and was registered as Holding No. 39. The suit property is a house with lands in the township of Gaya. Parvatia Devi died on 18-10-1990, leaving behind her husband Nanhku Tatwa, her son Nathun Prasad, and her two daughters, Smt. Domni Devi (the petitioner herein), and Chinta Devi. Nanhku Tatwa died on 9-1-19...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
R.S. Garg, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reference made by the Central Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not arise in the present matter so also that is a question of law, therefore, such a dispute could not be referred. His further submission is that the Central Government in view of the non-existence of the Industrial Disputes had no jurisdiction or authority to frame a question and refer the same to the Industrial Tribunal on the alleged issue. 3. Learned counsel for the workmen, placing his strong reliance upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madras v. C.P. Sarthy and Ors., reported in AIR 1953 SC 53 : 1953-I-LLJ-174, submits that the discretion and jurisdiction of the Central Government in making reference cannot be examined by Court on the judicial envoy because the order though is passed after hearing the parties but facts remained that the admi...
Tag this Judgment!Ranju Kumari and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 6-4-1999, as contained in Annexure-10, issued under Memo No. 133(6) dated 6-4-1999 and also to issue a writ of mandamus commanding upon respondent No. 5 to permit the petitioners and similarly situated students to appear in the ensuing revised A.N.M. examination.3. The writ petitioners are students of Raj A.N.M. Training School, Mazaffarpur, who have taken their admission in the school in the years 1997 and 1998 irrespective of the fact that the temporary recognition of the school in question was withdrawn/cancelled on 24-12-1996. Now, they have made a prayer to allow them to appear in the ensuing A.N.M. examination, as they have completed their course in the school in question.4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners are bona fide students of the school in question and have completed their cours...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Upendra Prasad Vs. State of Bihar ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
S. Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. This writ application is directed against the orders, as contained in Annexures-9 and 10 both dated 26-9-2001 and 28-9-2001, respectively. Vide order, as contained in Annexure-9, direction was issued to terminate the services of the petitioner and others and vide order, as contained in Annexure-10, the petitioner and others have been terminated from services. A further prayer has also been made for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to treat the services of the petitioner as a regular employee and to give him the consequential benefits.3. It is submitted by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as a chowkidar in Engineering Cell of the State Family Welfare Bureau of the Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Depertment, Government of Bihar, and was posted at Bhagalpur Sub-Division on daily wages with effect from 1-5-1981. In the year 1985, a select...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Satya Narayan
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
S.N. Pathak, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3rd April 1996 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal in Application No. Y3/18/2.2. It was a case of booking of a consignment of maize and its short delivery. The respondent filed the aforesaid case and the Railway Claims Tribunal, on the oasis of certain admitted documents, granted an amount of Rs. 11,663.50 as compensation to the respondents. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order of the Railway Claims Tribunal on the ground that the consignment was loaded directly into the wagon and the sender's weight given by the consignor was accepted as weight of consignment. The Railways did not weigh the consignment itself and the RR in its endorsement stated that the consignment was said to contain a particular weight. The loading was not supervised by the Railway authority. The Wagon had reached its destination with the seals intact. However, one of the seals was found to have cracked on verification. On the basis of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Shankar Sahay Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
P.K. Deb, J.1. The writ petitioner is a retired Judge of this High Court and his grievance in this writ petition is that the period for which he had served as Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Patna on his retirement as a Judge of this High Court has not been construed as qualifying service for the purpose of calculation of pension benefits and a representation made by the petitioner vide Annexure-3 before the Respondent No. 2 had not been paid heed to. The admitted position remains that on 27.7.1976, petitioner was appointed as High Court Judge of the Patna High Court and on 24.11.1986, he retired on superannuation. Before his retirement by notification of the State Government on 30.11.1986 he was appointed as a Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Patna and in pursuance of that notification soon after retiring from the High Court he joined as such on 25.11.1986 and on 24-11 -1989, he retired from the post of Presiding Officer. During the period of his tenure as ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »