Rajasthan Court October 1991 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.
Suresh Kumar Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-21-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN364
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. As per the facts mentioned in the memo of writ petition, the petitioner having born in Rajasthan, is a resident of Rajasthan. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajgarh, District Alwar, has also issued a residence certificate in this regard on 1-10-1986.2. In response to an advertisement issued on 30-9-1988, the petitioner submitted his application to the Chief Medical and Health Officer for admission to the Three Years Course in Nursing Training. His name did not find place in the list of selected candidates. On enquiry, he found that several persons who had been admitted to the course, had secured less percentage of marks as compared to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition in this Court on 27-6-1989. Notices were issued on 28-6-1989 to show cause as to why the writ petition be not admitted.3. On the stay application this court ordered that meanwhile, if anybody with less than 69% marks, which were received by the petitioner, has...
Madan Gopal Vs. Anandi Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-1991
Reported in: II(1992)ACC429; 1992ACJ543; (1999)IIILLJ585Raj; 1991(2)WLC335; 1991WLN(UC)315
B.R. Arora, J. 1. These three appeals raise a common question of law and they can be decided by this common judgment. For proper appreciation of the controversy, the facts of S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 10 of 1990 Madan Gopal and Ors. v. Anandi Lal are taken into consideration.2. Madan Gopal and Smt. Pana Devi - the dependants of the deceased Balu Ram filed a claim petition under Section 19 of the Workmen's Compensation Act before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Bikaner. The case of the claimant-dependant was that on May 30, 1985, at about 4.15 p.m. Uma Shanker, the son of the petitioners who was employed as the Conductor in bus No. RRG 3891, died during the course of his employment while he was on duty. It was averred in the claim petition that at the relevant time, the deceased was drawing the salary of Rs. 600/- per month and an extra allowance of Rs. 5/- per day. His total income was, thus, Rs. 750/- per month and at the time of his death, he was 20 years of age. It was, a...
Shokat Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1335; 1991(2)WLN398
ORDERN.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The petitioner has filed this bail application Under Section 439, Cr. P.C. for his release in criminal case FIR No. 196/1991.The accusation against the petitioner is that Charas weighing 7 grms. and 500 Ml. grms. were recovered from his possession on Sept. 12, 1991. A report of the incided was lodged at P.S. Kunhadi-Kota by Sh. Mohan Singh, S.H.O. On the said report, Crime No. 196/91 Under Section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1988 was registered. In the report, the age of the petitioner has been given as 17 years.2. The petitioner moved an application for grant of his bail under Section 439, Cr. P.C. before the Sessions Judge, Kota, but his application was rejected on the ground that as per medical report, the age of the petitioner is between 14 to 15 years, as such, he is a child within the definition of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'), as such, the order of bail cannot be passed by any Court constituted under the Code of ...
Rajesh Panwar Vs. University of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC213; 1991WLN(UC)501
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner in this case claimed the relief of a mercy chance in final year M.B.B.S. and the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that at any rate because it is the practice in the university to allow mercy chances, the petitioner should not be and could not be discriminated and a fifth chance to which he describes as 'Mercy chance' should have been allowed to the petitioner in one remaining paper of final year M.B.B.S.2. There is no dispute that the Ordinances which applicable to the case of the petitioner and others like him are 0.275-A and that may read as under:At the expiry of each period of four attempts including the examination at which the candidate appeared in all the subjects prescribed for the examination another period of the same duration will follow during which the provisions of Ordinance 275 above shall be applicable as regards passing the examination.N.B. - For the purose of this Ordinance actual attempt availed of by the candid...
Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran Kamgar Sangh Vs. Jaipur Development Authority
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN63
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. A short question which arise for determination in his writ petition is as to whether the Jaipur Development Authority (for short 'JDA') is entitled to withhold grant of semi permanent status to its employees who have rendered over two years satisfactory service in the work charge establishment.2. The petitioner is registered trade union and is representing the work charge employees of the JDA. It has filed this writ petition on behalf of 24 of its members who are working as Beldars in the service of the respondent JDA since April, 1983 to September, 1988. The case of the petitioner is that employees named in Schedule-A appended to the writ petition are in continuous employment of JDA for three to eight years. They are all working as Beldars and are being paid wages at the rate of Rs. 22/- per day. No payment is made available for Sundays and holidays. Their service were terminated by the respondent JDA in 1985. 22 of them filed their claim under the Industrial Disput...
Nortidevi Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)497
M.R. Calla, J.1. The petitioner is widow of one Kalyan son of Mool Chand who had been appointed on the post of Mason on 11th June, 1963 against a permanent post, as alleged in the writ petition. The petitioner's case is that while her husband was working under the Asstt. Engineer, City Sub-Division-III, PWD, Jaipur an office order was issued on 15th December, 1965 by which he was declared semi-permanent with effect from 11th June, 1965. In this order, the name of the petitioner's husband appears at Sr. No. 2. This order has been placed on record as Annexure-1. The petitioner's husband continued to work as semi-permanent employee till he expired on 11th May, 1975. After the death of her husband, the petitioner applied for pensionary benefits, but no relief was granted to her despite service of notice for demand of justice dated 26th September,1984. She made efforts to get the pensionary benefits, but a letter dated 30th September, 1985 was sent to the petitioner informing her that since...
Jhumarlal Vs. Chhaggan Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)300
B.R. Arora, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated January 5, 1991 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, by which, (he learned Additional Civil Judge dismissed the application under Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C., filed by the defendant and refused to allow the amendments.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order, passed by the Court below as well as the record of the case.3. The amendments, which have been sought by the learned Counsel for the defendant relates to the fact that the plaintiff, who has given the shop No. 388 to Mangilal washerman and he has taken the possession of that shop and as the possession of that shop has been taken, therefore the requirement of the plaintiff comes to an end. The plaintiff contested the application and filed the reply, to the same and denied the averments made in the application. Alongwith the reply, the plaintiff also filed an affidavit of Mst. Shanti W/o Mangilal, who has...
Chambal Vikas Yantrik Sinchai Karmachari Sangh Vs. State of Rajasthan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC26; 1991(2)WLN131
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Petitioner Sangh which is a registered Trade Union and which represents the employees of the Chambal Command Area Development, Kota, has filed this writ petition seeking relief of quashing of order dated 9-1-81 and 24-8-82 with a further claim for declaration that the employees whose names have been given in the Schedule-A are entitled to the benefits of the Rajasthan P.W.D. (B & R) including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Department Workcharged Employees Service Rules, 1964. It has further been prayed that the respondents may be directed to pay the arrears of salary to the members of the petitioner Sangh from the date they have completed 2 years service after being declared semi permanent.2. The petitioner has given list of its 129 members on whose behalf the petition has been filed. All the members of the petitioner Sangh are daily rated workers and nature of job performed by them brings them within the scope of the term workmen used in Section 2 of...
Pesticides India Vs. the State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-1991
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC582; 1991WLN(UC)199
Jasraj Chopra, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the Notification No. F.4(2)FD/GRIV/77-14, dated 30.3.1977 issued by the Govt. of Rajasthan in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 28 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act' herein.)2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are : that M/s Mawar Oil and General Mills Ltd. Udaipur is a public limited Company registered under the Companies Ac and its Head Office is situated at Udaipur and it carried on the business of manufacturing Pesticides and other medical and toilet preparations under the name and style of M/s Pesticides India. The petitioner Company is having licence under the Rajasthan Excise Act for dealing in excise Articles including absolute alcohol, which is required in some of the products and preparations which are manufactured by it. It is alleged that o...
Smt. Ramjankibai Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)375
M.R. Calla, J.1. Through this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 31.12.1988 whereby she had been retrenched.2. The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner has been appointed on a daily wages basis for Rs. 14/- per day in the office of Irrigation Department and by the impugned order dated 3LI. 1988, her services were terminate after making a payment of Rs. 364/- for the period of 1.1.1989 to 31.1.1989 and a sum of Rs. 182/- as wages for 15 days and Rs. 280/- as wages for 20 days of the Dec, 1988. Thus, according to the respondents, they had fully complied with the requirement envisaged Under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.3. However, Mr. Keshote has raised a very interesting question and his submission is that the wages which have been paid to her i.e. a sum of Rs. 364/- is not as wages for the period from 1.1.1989 to 31.1.1989 but it comes out to be wages for 26 days only i.e. 26 X 14 = 364. Similarly a sum of Rs. 182/- which has been...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »