Patna Court March 2005 Judgments
Shankar Kumar and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-31-2005
Barin Ghosh, J.1. Late Chhabi Lal Prasad was the Headmaster of Middle School, Siswadharhi in Ghoghardiha Block of Madhubani District. There is no dispute that on 31st December, 1974, late Chhabi Lal Prasad was appointed as the Headmaster of the said school. While in service, late Chhabi Lal Prasad died leaving him surviving his sons, being the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and his widow, being the petitioner No. 3. The petitioners thus applied for grant of retiral/terminal dues due to late Chhabi Lal Prasad, as his heirs, and also family pension due to the petitioner No. 3. By Annexure 1 to the writ petition dated 10th April, 2002, the Accountant General, Bihar raised an objection to the effect that late Chhabi Lal Prasad was not entitled to the remuneration as was given to him on 31st December, 1974, and accordingly returned the papers of the petitioners to the appropriate department of the State for effecting necessary corrections in the service book of late Chhabi Lal Prasad as well as ...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjeet Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.1. Petitioner is a clerk and while working as such in the Primary Health Centre, Chiraiya in the district of East Champaran, filed application for his transfer before the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, East Champaran. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, hereinafter referred the Civil Surgeon, considered his representation and by order as contained in memo dated 13.11.2003 (Annexure-1), transferred him as clerk in the office of the Additional Chief Medical Officer, Motihari in anticipation of the approval of the Health Directorate. In pursuance of the said order, petitioner joined at the transferred place.2. It seems that the matter in relation to transfer of the petitioner and respondent No. 5 Rajiv Kumar was under consideration of Health Directorate and hence, by letter dated 18.3.2004 (Annexure-2), the Deputy Director of Health Services asked the Civil Surgeon to furnish the seniority list of clerks working in his surgency. In the ligh...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Mohammad Golam Bari @ Golam Bari Vs. the Bihar State Sunni Wakf ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
S.N. Hussain, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is the sole defendant of Title Suit No. 160 of 1970 which was filed by the sole opposite party, namely, the Board, for a decree of possession with respect to the disputed house which according to the plaintiff was wakf board.2. The defendant petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 14.10.2004. passed in the aforesaid suit by which the learned Subordinate Judge 8th Patna rejected his petition under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint by adding some facts in paragraph 9 of the written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not seeking any, amendment in the relief portion and merely wants to bring on record certain facts with respect to the earlier Title Suit No. 37 of 1952 to show that the property was not a Wakf Board.3.3. Learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submi...
Tag this Judgment!Tripurari Narayan Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
S.K. Katriar, J.1. Heard Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. Binod Kumar, JC to learned Standing Counsel No. II.2. According to the writ petition, the petitioner was admitted to the Diesel Mechanic Trade for the session 1999-2000 at the Industrial Training Institute, Muzaffarpur, which is a one year course. The petitioner claims to have completed the course and appeared at the examination held in July 2000. He complains before this Court that his result is not being published.3. Learned government counsel has placed on record his counter affidavit and has opposed this writ petition. The respondents have taken the stand in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had not deposited the caution money of Rs. 50/-, essential to be deposited at the time of admission to the course in question. It is further stated that in view of a large number of irregularities in admissions including that of the petitioner, the then Deputy Director enquired into the alleged improprieties...
Tag this Judgment!DulhIn Sundar Basiya Devi @ Sundarbasiya and anr. Vs. Ramanand Singh
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
S.N. Hussain, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners are plaintiffs of title suit No. 154 of 1994 which they had filed for permanent injunction and other ancillary relief against the defendant-opposite party.3. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 31.3.2004 by which the Munsif-II, Sasaram, dismissed Miscellaneous Case No. 8 of 1998 filed by them under Order IX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of the aforesaid Title Suit No. 154/94 which was dismissed for default on 2.3.1998.4. The short fact of this case is that the petitioners had filed the said title suit on 19.8.1994 and after more than two years they filed court fees in the trial Court on 9.1.1997 and thereafter despite repeated orders they did not file requisites for issuance of summons etc. to the defendant for more than one year and as such the case was dismissed for default on 2.3.1998.5. For restoration of the aforesaid suit the plaintiffs filed the aforesaid Miscellane...
Tag this Judgment!NavIn Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.The petitioner, seeks direction upon the respondents to pay his salary for the period with effect from 13.8.2000 to 22.7.2001.2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the order, as contained in Annexure-2, the petitioner along with four others were appointed on the posts of Assistant Professor in the faculty of Electrical Engineering and pursuant to that the petitioner reported his joining before the Additional Secretary, Science and Technology, Government of Bihar, Patna, on 12.8.2000, but for the reasons best known to the respondent authorities, his salary has not been paid from the date of his joining.3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that on the basis of recommendation made by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Commission'), the petitioner and others were found eligible for posting on the posts of Assistant Professor ...
Tag this Judgment!Satyanand Pandey Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo dated 5.7.1999 (Annexure 4) whereby the District Superintendent of Education, East Champaran at Motihari while revoking the order of suspension had inflicted various punishments including the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order as contained in Memo dated 15th of April, 2004 (Annexure 8) whereby the appeal preferred against the aforesaid order has been dismissed by the Commissioner as barred by limitation.2. In view of the order which I propose to pass, it is inexpedient to give in detail the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that by order dated 10.9.1997 petitioner was put under suspension. Thereafter by Memo dated 24.10.1997 petitioner was served with the memo of charge and he was asked to submit his explanation. Petitioner submitted his explanation dated 17.11.1997 (Annexure 2) denying...
Tag this Judgment!Debashree Construction (India) Pvt. Limited Vs. the State of Bihar and ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-28-2005
Aftab Alam, J.1. The petitioner is a registered company incorporated under the Companies Act. It is represented before the Court through its Managing Director.2. The petitioner company, that is registered as a Class I Government contractor, has come to the Court with the grievance that due to the strike of the Non-Gazetted Government employees at the material time and some undue favour shown by he concerned authorities to someone else, a situation had arisen where the petitioner was denied a chance to bid for a contract but another private party was provided with the means and the opportunity to do so.3. The facts of the case are brief and may be stated thus. The Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Aurangabad issued a notice inviting tenders for I.R.Q.P. work for the year 2004-05 on Patna-Aurangabad section of National Highway No. 98 between Km. 90 to Km. (127) 52. The estimated cost of the work was shown as Rs. 408.95 lacs, the amount of security deposit was Rs. 8.18 lacs ...
Tag this Judgment!Bihar State Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-28-2005
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Admittedly, appeal is pending against the assessment order. When the attachment was made under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the petitioner itself undertook to deposit the amount in instalment and thereafter the attachment was recalled. Now the petitioner is making a prayer to stay the realisation of the amount till the disposal of the appeal. 3. The petitioner cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold. Once it has undertaken to deposit the amount, it cannot take a different stand. In that view of the matter, the prayer for stay of realisation of the amount till the disposal of the appeal is rejected. However, the appellate authority is directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously preferably within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order....
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Prasad Verma Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.2. The writ petition questions the action of the respondents dated 24.5.1988 at Annexure-4 by which a decision was taken to commence a fresh de novo departmental enquiry against the petitioner and in pursuance of which necessary communication on 4.6.1997 at Annexure-3, enclosing certain documents in respect of such de novo enquiry come to be issued.3. The facts necessary for adjudication of the grievance of the writ petitioner would be that the petitioner while in service was served with a memo of charges. Annexure-2 would reveal that the charges were primarily of the nature of irregularities in appointment of retrenched and Muster Roll Workers. The departmental enquiry, led to the submission of an enquiry report on 20.6.1997. The Enquiry Officer by a reasoned order exonerated the petitioner. Soon thereafter the impugned order dated 24.5.1988 at Annexure-4 came to be issued for a fresh de ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »