Patna Court June 2003 Judgments
Kedar Nath Verma Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-25-2003
R.M. Prasad, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, who retired from the service of the Respondent-Board on 30th April, 1999, is aggrieved on account of non-release of gratuity amount in the revised scale and further on account of recovery of a sum of Rs. 26,147 of the alleged excess amount drawn by him on account of erroneous fixation of pay on his promotion.2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent-Board and its officials. The amount of gratuity totalling to a sum of Rs. 52,732 has already been paid vide cheque No. 370206 dated 28-4-2003. With regard to the recovery from the total amount of gratuity of Rs. 78,878.80, it is stated that the same has been recovered on account of excess pay paid to the petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay. According to the Board, the petitioner was informed about the discrepancy in the pay fixation vide letter No. 2144 dated 4-10-2001, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-C, but till date he has neither challenged the s...
Tag this Judgment!Arti Devi @ Arti Pandey Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-25-2003
R.M. Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, who claims to be the widow of Shyam Kishore Pandey, who was a Constable in F/36th Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force and had proceeded on 60 days' leave with effect from 7-6-1995 to 5-8-1995 and became traceless since then, has claimed for payment of death-cum-retiral dues, including family pension, treating her husband dead after expiry of seven years in view of the provisions contained in Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 2. It appears that earlier the petitioner had filed Cr.W.J.C. No. 625 of 1996, which was held to be not maintainable and hence dismissed, vide order dated 20-9-2000, contained in Annexure-4. It was however, observed that the petitioner is free to file a civil writ or suit, if any monetary benefit accrued to her. 3. After expiry of seven years since her husband became traceless, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra Singh Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-23-2003
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J. 1. Petitioner was a constable in the Border Security Force. A Summary Security Force Court was held on the purported allegation that he had committed the offence of theft of 29 rounds of ammunition. The Summary Security Force Court, hereinafter referred to as the Court, held the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months in a civil prison and to be dismissed from service. The petitioner was communicated the order by the Commandant on 20-2-2001. The Court was held at the Headquarter of the Border Security Force (for short 'Force') at Kupwara in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The Deputy Inspector General of the Force in exercise of his power under Rule 161 of the B.S.F. Rules, 1969, remitted the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months in civil prison but maintained the order of dismissal from service. Said order of the Deputy Inspector General of the Force was promulgated to the petitioner on 14th of May, 2001....
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Ic-37203-f Lt. Col. Vijay Kumar Shar ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-23-2003
R.S. Garg, J. 1. The appellant Union of India being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12th July, 2001 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4669 of 1999 directing that case of the petitioner be reconsidered for his promotion from the rank of Lt. Colonel to Acting Colonel/Colonel after ignoring the A.C.Rs. of the years 1990-91 and 1992-93 and a further direction that the No. 3 Selection Board shall be constituted and convened to consider petitioner's case for promotion, was come to this Court inter alia submitting that the directions issued by the learned single Judge are not in accordance with law and tantamounts to interference into the selection process of the Armed Disciplined Forces.2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present writ application are that the petitioner joined the Armed Forces as Second Lieutenant in the Bihar Regiment on 18-3-1978. He earned awards/rewards and due promotions in time and in November, 1989 he was given charge as Commanding Officer when he was a Major ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramashray Mahto and ors. Vs. Amiri Mahto and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-23-2003
S.K. Katriar, J. 1. Heard Mr. Mangal Prasad Mishra for the appellants, and Mr. Vijay Shankar Srivastava for respondent No. 1. The defendants are the appellants. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25-5-1999, passed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Motihari, in Title Appeal No. 99 of 1993 (Ramashray Mahato and Ors. v. Amiri Mahto and Ors., whereby he has held that the appeal at the instance of the present appellants has abated on account of non-substitution of heirs of a co-appellant. 2. The plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein) had instituted the suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs which was decreed by judgment dated 18-10-1993. The defendants preferred Title Appeal No. 99 of 1993 before the learned District Judge, Motihari. Appellant No. 2 (Jiya Lal Mahto) died on 25-8-1998, and steps for substitution were not taken. Therefore, the plaintiff (respondent No, 1 herein) filed an application on 15-2-1999, praying therein that the appeal had aba...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Prasad and Etc. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-09-2003
Aftab Alam, J. 1. Mahendra Prasad, the sole petitioner in C. W. J. C. No. 2880 of 2002 filed a partition suit being Partition Suit No. 64 of 1989 in the Court of Subordinate Judge IV, Bihar Sharif (Nalanda) for partition of the family properties, Basudeo Prasad, the sole petitioner in C. W. J. C. No. 2793 of 2002, is one of the defendants in that suit. In the present dispute, they are together against Raghunandan Prasad, defendant No. 1 in the suit and a common respondent in both the writ petitions. The present dispute has arisen, during the pendency of the suit, as a part of the suit lands has been acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act, the public purpose being construction of an Ordinance Factory at Rajgir. In the notices issued in the land acquisition proceeding and in the award prepared for payment of compensation to land holders the area of the acquired land in the hands of Raghunandan Prasad is shown far in excess of what is his share, according to the writ ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-09-2003
Aftab Alam, J.1. The pre-emptor is the petitioner in this writ petition arising from a pre-emption-proceeding under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act. The petitioner's claim of pre-emption was upheld and allowed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Teghra by his order, dated 17-9-1997 (Annexure 2) passed, in Case No. 3 of 1995-96. The vendee's appeal against that order was dismissed by the Collector, Begusarai by order, dated 26-12-2000 (Annexure 3) passed in Ceiling Appeal No. 20 of 1997. Her revision before the Board of Revenue was, however, allowed by order, dated 11-12-2002 passed in Case No. 44 of 2001 and it is against this order that the pre-emptor writ petitioner has come to this Court.2. The Board of Revenue found that there were procedural defects in filing the pre-emption application in the statutory form and further held that the petitioner was not the sole proprietor but only a co-sharer of the piece of land adjoining the disputed plot and hence, it was not op...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›