Rajasthan Court July 2000 Judgments
Pawan Kumar Vs. Smt. Mukesh Kumari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj1; I(2001)DMC282; 2000(3)WLC527; 2001(1)WLN188
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J. 1. This Civil Misc. Appeal is directed by the husband Pawan Kumar against the respondent Smt.Mukesh Kumari against the order dated 15-12-1999 whereby the application of divorce filed under Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act for declaring the marriage to be null and void has been rejected by the Additional District Judge,Bayana (Bharatpur). 2. The facts are that the marriage between the parties had taken place in accordance with the Hindu rites on 3-6-1990 and after two days of the marriage, the respondent wife left for her parent house. It is the allegation that after 4 1/2 months of the marriage on 19-11-1990, a male child was born to the respondent and, therefore, the appellant alleged that at the time of marriage the respondent was pregnant from some other person with whom she must have had the sexual relations. On being asked of the fact, the respondent is said to have admitted that she was pregnant at the time of marriage from some other person but she ...
Tag this Judgment!Nathu Lal Jangid and Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj119; 2001(4)WLC255; 2001(3)WLN626
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard.2. Perused the materials available on record in these three writ petitions, common questions of law and facts are involved and as such these petitions can be disposed off by a common judgment without narrating the facts in detail averred in each of the writ petition.3. As a matter of fact, in these writ petitions, pure question of interpretation of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 63 of Rajasthan Municipal Act, 1959 [hereinafter referred as Act No. 38 of 1959) and the rules framed thereunder relating to procedure in holding inquiry into the charges against members/councillors or office bearers of a Municipal Board is Involved.4. As regards the case of Nathulal Jangid. It is posted today for admission but with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. I propose to decide the aforesaid writ petition today on merit at admission stage along with other two petitions which are posted for final hearing.5. In these three writ petitions, distinct charges wer...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Dhariwal Vs. Jai NaraIn Vyas University
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN632
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed for issuing a direction to the respondent to grant senior and selection scale to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1986 and 5.2.1994 respectively; i.e. after completion of 8 and 16 years service, by way of Career Advancement Scheme in terms of the Ordinance 317 of the respondent University.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner, after acquiring the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering, was appointed as Lecturer in Structure Engineering in the respondent University vide order dated 3.2.1977. He had been involved in a criminal case, thus could not attend the University and his services were terminated by the respondent University vide order dated 13.11.1982. He remained in jail from 5.1.1983 to 26.7.1991. After being released from jail, he preferred Writ Petition No. 3888/1991 before this Court challenging the order of removal dated 13.11.1982, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 2...
Tag this Judgment!R.S.R.T.C. and anr. Vs. Sanwal Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC479; 2001(1)WLN717
B.J. Shethna, J.1. For the alleged mis-conduct for allowing 53 passengers to travel in a bus on 17.7.1977 the respondent workman working as conductor with the petitioner corporation was charge sheeted and after the evidence was led the enquiry officer has exonerated him by holding that the Department was not able to prove the charge against him. However, the disciplinary authority did not agree with that finding and without issuing any notice to the respondent workman straightway took the different view of the matter and passed an order of punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and also forfeited the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension by an order dated 27.3.1981. The same was challenged before the Labour Court. The Labour Court on 25.2.1995 set aside the order of punishment on the ground that no reasonable opportunity was given to the workman before passing the order of punishment particularly when the enquiry officer exonerated him for the...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Laxminarayan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLN15
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. The General Manager Western Railway, Mumbai is the petitioner in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur in Original Application No. 330/98 dated 1.10.1999, filed by the respondent (herein), praying for setting aside the order dated 2.12.1998 in so far as it relates to allotment of Railway quarter No. L/166 to him and quarter No. L/35 to one Shri P.C. Gupta and for a direction to the respondents (therein) to allow him to continue to stay in Railway quarter No. L/35 till he remains posted at Abu Road.2. It is seen from the records that the Railway administration have allotted the quarter No. L/35 to P.C. Gupta and another quarter No. L/166 in the same colony to respondent Laxminarayan. It is the contention of the respondent that he was working as Loco Foreman and was accordingly allotted the quarter No. L/35. The Foreman posted earlier i...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Singh Ranawat Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN629
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Government dated 8.6.2000 and the consequential order passed by the Vikas Adhikari calling upon the petitioner to verify/prove the genuinenes of B.Ed, degree within fifteen days, failing which his services shall stand terminated.2. According to the petitioner, vacancies were advertised for the post of Teacher Grade III and in response thereto, he applied for and he was selected and given appointment vide order dated 22.5.1999. Petitioner has further alleged that vide Office Order dated 6.7.2000, he was asked and called upon to produce proof of genuineness of the degree within a period of fifteen days and if, the same' is not done, necessary action shall be taken against him. The above referred order has been issued in pursuance to the order dated 8.6.2000. The Government has issued order directing all those candidates/employees who has passed B.Ed, examination from out-side the State of Rajasthan t...
Tag this Judgment!Rukma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ1361Raj; 2000(3)WLN34
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Heard both the sides.This special appeal is directed against the order of a learned single Judge dated May 9, 1997 dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the husband of the appellant had never opted for pension and did not submit even the pension form for family pension and because of that reason his stale claim is now being taken up after lapse of more than 20 years.2. We are unable to appreciate the reasons given by the learned single Judge for disposal of the writ petition. In the present case, the husband of the appellant entered in service of the State Government as Helper w.e.f. April 1,1955. He was later promoted to the post of Assistant Gr.-II w.e.f. September 28, 1961, and further promoted to the post of Assistant Gr. I w.e.f. April 20, 1970 and thereafter as Fitter II w.e.f. November 19, 1976. The services of the petitioner-appellant's husband were regularized in the regular cadre of workcharged employees. The husband of the appellant expired o...
Tag this Judgment!Urban Improvement Trust Vs. Kailash Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR671]; (2002)IVLLJ682Raj; 2001WLC(Raj)UC134
Ashok Parihar, J. 1. Petitioner has challenged the award dated September 25, 1998, passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, by which, termination of services of the respondent No. 1 concerned workman has been held to be illegal and unjustified and he has been ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages.2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record as also the impugned award.3. The concerned workman had worked for about 261 days in the year 1983-84, however, before terminating his services on May 1, 1984, compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act of 1947) was not made. The only plea taken by the petitioner before the Labour Court was that the concerned workman had worked on different sites on daily wages muster roll basis, as such, the period of different sites cannot be clubbed together so as to calculate the number of days for compliance of Section 25-F of the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sunitha Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2727; 2000WLC(Raj)UC596
ORDERS.C. Mital, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred to call for the record of the Criminal Case No. 367/93 State of Rajasthan v. Manoj Kumar and others pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer and to quash the said proceedings.2. The brief facts leading to this petition are that respondent Food Inspector. S.L. Santoshi, Primary Health Centre, Degana filed a complaint on 23-2-93 under Section 7 read with 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred as 'P.F.A. Act') against Manoj Kumar, M/s. Hari Om Partners, Bhanwar Lal, Chhagan Lal, Shri Krishna Distributors in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer with the allegation that the sample of mustard oil (Real Gold Brand) taken on 29-4-92 from one sealed tin was found adulterated as it did not confirm to the prescribed standards. Shri Manoj Kumar is the vendor and other accused persons are said to be distributors. The trial was in progress and on 31-1...
Tag this Judgment!Employees State Insurance Corp. Vs. Bharat Motors
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC333; 2000(3)WLN37
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Employees State Insurance Corporation, Jaipur through its Regional Director against the judgment dated 27.04.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 159/2000. The said appeal was filed by the Corporation to declare the judgment and decree passed by the E.S.I. Court as illegal and to quash the same.2. The E.S.I. Court has held that the respondent is not a 'factory' as defined under Section 2(12) of the Act of 1948 for the reason that ten or more employees were not in the employment of it as required by Sub-section (12) of Section 2 of the Act of 1948 for holding an establishment as a factory. This Court has also held that there was violation of the provisions of Section 45-A of the Act as no opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent-employer. It is the case of the appellant (herein) that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the employer, and, that Section 45-A has no applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »