Patna Court October 2004 Judgments

Rani Kumari Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated 15.4.2003 of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Darbhanga addressed to the Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Hayaghat informing that the service of the petitioner as Auxilary Nurse Midwife at Primary Health Centre, Hayaghat is terminated with immediate effect. Petitioner is further aggrieved by order dated 21.4.2003 (Annexure-7) whereby the Incharge Medical Officer of the Primary Health Centre informed her about the termination of her appointment. Prayer of this petitioner in this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to quash the aforesaid communication and the order.2. According to the petitioner, in pursuance of the advertisement for filling up the post of Auxilary Nurse Midwife, hereinafter referred to as the Midwife, she offered her candidature claiming to have passed the Secondary School Examination held by the Bihar School Examination Board in t...

Sita Devi and ors. Vs. Bihar State Khadi and Village Industries Board ...

Court: Patna

Aftab Alam, J.1. The petitioners in this batch of eight writ petitions are retired employees (in two cases the widows of deceased employees) of the Bihar State Khadi and Village Industries Board ('the Board' hereinafter). The petitioners (the expression includes the dead husbands of the petitioners in two cases) retired from the service of the Board after full tenures, spanning over 30, 35 or 40 years. They have not been paid their terminal benefits and these writ petitions are filed seeking a direction to the Board and the State Government for payment of their retiral dues.2. The Board does not dispute the petitioners' claim. It is admitted that the petitioners were the employees of the Board. They were validly appointed and they served the Board for full tenures of their respective services. Their claim for retiral dues is admitted. In fact, in cases of some of the petitioners even sanction orders were issued for payment of their retiral dues. But, according to the Board, it is unab...

Shamim Ahmad Khan Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Reported in: 2005(1)JCR490Pat

1. Resting his case entirely on the negligence and default by the Government, the petitioner stands before this Court claiming his pension and other retiral dues. The facts giving rise to the petitioner's claim are very brief and can be put in no more than a few sentences. The petitioner, along with many others was appointed as temporary Assistant Engineer in Bihar Engineering Service Class II in Public Works Department by notification dated 8.6.1960. After working for a few years he applied for leave to go abroad for higher study. He was granted leave by Government order No. 4334, dated 10.3.1969 but that order has not been produced before the Court either by the petitioner or by the respondent authorities and therefore, the period of leave and the exact terms and conditions on which leave was allowed remains unknown.2. He proceeded on 'Ex-India leave' from 1.7.1970 to 7.7.1972 on being relieved on 1.7.1990 vide memo No. 13901, dated 2.7.1970 issued by the Under Secretary to the Gover...

Bhagwan Singh and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors. Overruled

Court: Patna

Nagendra Rai, A.C.J.1. In these writ applications, the vires of Rule 122, as amended by notification dated 28.2.2002, has been challenged primarily on the ground that the same is ultra vires Article 243O of the Constitution of India and Sections 140 and 143 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). They have also challenged the orders passed by the State Election Commission in exercise of the said power disqualifying the office bearers of the Panchayat as well as the orders by which the State Election Commission has rejected the prayer in some cases to disqualify the candidates on merit. In some cases, the elected members have incurred disqualification after election and the State Election Commission has also passed orders declaring them disqualified under the aforesaid Rule, read with Section 139(2) of the Act.2. To appreciate the point, it is first necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Act, at the very beginning....

Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and ors. Vs. Ranjit Kumar

Court: Patna

S.N. Hussian, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners are defendants in Title Suit No. 23 of 1985 which was filed by the sole opposite party under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) for the appointment of an Arbitrator for looking into the dispute between the parties under the terms of agreement as provided in the Arbitration Clause-XIX.3. The short fact of the case is that petitioners and the opposite party entered into a contract on 4.7.1977 by which the opposite party was appointed as Handling and Transport Contractor in some of the depots of the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for the sake of brevity) at 249% above the Schedule of Rates (SCR) of the Corporation for the Period 4.7.1977 to 3.7.1980 for the storage and distribution of food grains. After the contract was over there was a dispute regarding difference of cost incurred on account of enhanced ...

Lalmuni Devi and ors. Vs. Jagdish Tiwary and ors.

Court: Patna

S.K. Katriar, J.1. The defendants first set are the appellants against a judgment of reversal. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9.6.1998, passed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Siwan, in title appeal No. 13 of 1992, Jagdish Tiwari v. Lalmuni Devi and Ors., whereby he has allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff and the defendants second set, and set aside the judgment and decree dated 9.4.1992, passed by the learned 2nd Munsif, Siwan, in title suit No. 101 of 1984, Jagdish Tiwari v. Rajpati Chaudhary and Ors. The learned trial Court had dismissed the suit which has been set aside by the impugned judgment and decreed the suit. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the plaint.2. it arises out of a suit for declaration of title of the plaintiff and defendant 2nd set (respondent herein), and for confirmation of their possession over the suit land bearing plot No. 104. As per the plaint, Ram Ugrah Tiwari had four sons, na...