Rajasthan Court September 2000 Judgments
Smt. Roop Raj Laxmi Vs. the Sub-divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC533; 2007(3)WLN469
J.C. Verma, J.1. Maharwal Sangram Singhji was the former Jagirdar of Samod. He died on 15.2.1963 leaving behind him his son Rajeshwar Singh and widow Roop Raj Laxmi.2. Chapter III-B was introduced in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 vide Act No. IV of 1960 published in Rajasthan Gazette dated 21.3.1960 which had come into force w.e.f. 15.12.1963 vide notification dated 26.11.1963. It was a socio-economic legislation. It was decided to acquire the surplus land from the person in whose hands the land was concentrated for fair distribution to the land less agriculturists and other deserving persons with a view to remove the disparity in the holding of agricultural land and to increase the agricultural production. Section 30-E provided that the land would be surrendered from the date notified by the State Government and ultimately the date so notified was notified as 1.4.1966 for the purpose of declaring the land to be surplus is the hand of Khatedar so entered in the Revenue Board on the d...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and ors. Vs. Shekhar Chand Jain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC331; 2001(3)WLN424
ORDERShethna, J. (1). Original applicant Shekhar Chand Jain filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), stating that while he was functioning as Senior Transport Instructor in the Zonal Training Centre, Western Railway, Udaipur, two of his juniors were promoted on ad hoc basis in the grade of Rs. 2375-3500 w.e.f. 18.4.94. On a representation made by him, he was also given ad hoc promotion w.e.f. 17.11.94. Though he was senior, but he was superseded by his juniors in ad hoc promotion. He retired from service on 30.11.94. His grievance was that because of his late promotion in the scale of Rs. 2375- 3500, he was put to recurring financial loss in pensionary benefits as compared to his juniors. He made several representations and ultimately, his last representation dated 29.9.96 was rejected by letter dated 11.3.97 at Annex. A/6 to the original application and his further representation was also rejected on 28.5.97, Annex. A/1 to the original application. He, th...
Tag this Judgment!Dhirendra Singh Bhati Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC297; 2001(3)WLN463
ORDERShethna, J. (1). The appellant who is original petitioner filed writ petition No. 2220/1996 before this Court on 3.7.96 and prayed that the respondents may be directed to appoint him as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant (Dying While in Service) Rules, 1975 on the ground that his mother Smt. Rajkumari Bhati, who was serving as Assistant Teacher with the respondent Department died while in service on 29.2.88, therefore, he being dependent of his mother, he should be given appointment as LDC. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by his impugned judgment and order 17.3.99. The same is challenged in this special appeal by the appellant-original petitioner.(2). It may be stated that the deceased mother as well as father of the appellant both were serving. The mother was serving as Assistant Teacher with the respondent department whereas father was serving as Clerk with Rajasthan State Electricity Board. His mot...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Lal and ors. Vs. Bharosi Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1750
J.C. Verma, J.1. This civil misc. appeal has been preferred against the dismissal of the claim application.2. One Khoob Chand had died in a motor accident on 25.5.1998. The deceased was the elder brother of claimant-appellant Nos. 1 and 4 and was brother-in-law of appellant Nos. 2 and 5 and father of appellant No. 3. He had died because of the accident caused by bus No. RJ 14-P 3326 belonging to the Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). He was 60 years of age and was doing the business of fruit vendor. The deceased was unmarried and had adopted a son, i.e., appellant No. 3. Certain issues were framed including issue Nos. 6 and 7 about the maintainability of the claim application on behalf of the brothers, adopted son and other relatives. Without giving any opportunity to the parties, the Tribunal had held that the deceased was an unmarried person and, therefore, the applicant Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 were not entitled to maintain the applicat...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Yatish Sharan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC701; 2007(3)WLN541
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The original petitioner, Yatish Sharan filed a writ petition No. 3280/96 against the three respondents (1) State of Rajasthan (2) The Chief Engineer and (3) N.K. Dutta and prayed that he should also be considered for promotion from the date on which his junior respondent No.3 Shri N.K. Dutta was promoted. Though served, respondent No.3, Shri Dutta had not entered his appearance and in his absence, the writ petition was decided by the learned Single Judge on 6.5.1999.2. It must be stated that earlier Shri Dutta had filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2444/98 wherein the original petitioner Shri Yatish Sharan filed an application for impleading himself as party - respondent. However, it was conceded by the learned Counsel Shri Dutta that Shri Yatish Sharan was senior to Shri Dutta in the seniority list. The same petition was later on dismissed on 13.1.1993. That order became final.3. Thereafter, in the year 1996, Shri Yatish Sharan filed writ petition No. 3280/96 before...
Tag this Judgment!Jagatjit Cotton and Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-2000
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ366Raj; 2000(4)WLC411; 2001(1)WLN379
B.J. Shethna, J. 1. For a petty offence of theft, one cannot be hanged, similarly for a misconduct of remaining absent for four days, one cannot be terminated from service. If there are such regulations then they are ultra vires. In fact, such regulation was struck down by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4728/1999 decided on December 2, 1999. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Singh Charan v. Management Swetamber Nakoda Parsavnath, Mewanagar and Ors. reported in 1999(1) RLW 314 has also taken the same view.2. In view of the above, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent-workman whose services were terminated on the ground that he remained absent from duty for four days. 3. In view of above, the learned single Judge held that when standing order has already been struck down being arbitrary, then the same has to be ignored. Inspite of that, relying upon such regulation, services of the respondent-workman were terminated. However, ...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Lal and ors. Vs. Rajendra Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC114; 2001ACJ215
J.C. Verma, J.1. The present misc. appeals have been preferred against the award dated 21.6.1996 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur whereby the amount of Rs. 86,400 has been awarded in MACT Case No. 114 of 1989 in Appeal No. 618 of 1998 and Rs. 72,000 has been awarded in MACT Case No. 691 of 1992 in Appeal No. 1008 of 1997, because of the death of Narayan (in 691 of 1992) and Manohar Lal (in 114 of 1989) in the accident occurred on 24.9.89 caused by driver of scooter No. RNX 6902, when the scooter struck with the pole and these two persons fell on road.2. Two Claim Application Nos. 114 of 1989 and 691 of 1992 were filed by the claimants. After framing the required issues in regard to negligence and also for quantum of compensation, the Tribunal had come to a finding that the driver of the scooter, on which said two students were travelling, had caused the accident because of rash and negligent driving. Counsel for appellants submits that the deceased Narayan was 18 years...
Tag this Judgment!idan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC449; 2001(1)WLN375
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is a candidate belonging to other Backward Class and has applied for recruitment to the post of Gram Sevak in response to advertisement No. 1/96 to appear in the Recruitment Competitive Examination, 1996. In the said recruitment exercise notwithstanding he having secured 212 out of 300 total marks and was holding number one in merit amongst other candidates belonging to O.B.C. his name was not included in the select list of candidates belonging to O.B.C.3. Having come to know about this situation, he made a representation on which Additional Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner respondent No. 2 informed the Director, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, vide his letter dt. 24.10.1997 (Ex.4) stating that this mistake has been committed inadvertently due to not registering the name of the petitioner amongst the candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes. It was also stated i...
Tag this Judgment!Shaukat Ali Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC324; 2001(1)WLN145
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Central Administrative Tribunal was wholly wrong in holding that, as a matter of fact, it was a misrepresentation on the part of the applicants on the basis of which the respondent Government committed mistake in extending them the benefit steping up of pay.'2. It is clear that the petitioners had made only representation to the Government. It was the mistake committed by the Government and not by the petitioners, for which the petitioners cannot be held responsible. The amount so over-paid to the petitioners was of hardly Rs. 200/- per month. Once it was paid to them rightly or wrongly, then in. our considered opinion, it should not have been recovered from them by the Government. Because, for the Government Rs. 200/- would hardly the matter but for the petitioners who are employee Rs. 200/- would be much.3. In view of the above discussion, we allow this writ petition...
Tag this Judgment!Jaipur Drt Bar Association Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC384; 2001(2)WLN311
ORDERMadan, J.1. Jaipur DRT Bar Association (petitioner) through its Secretary Shri Rajendra Sharma Advocate espousing the cause of Advocates practising before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short 'DRT'), Jaipur, has filed this writ petition as Public Interest Litigation, seeking writ, order or direction to-(1) quash the office order dated 18th April, 2000 (Annex.2) issued by the Registrar, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for brevity 'DRAT'), Bombay, including the direction issued by the Chairperson of the DRAT to the Presiding Officer of the DRT Jaipur; (2) restrain the Presiding Officer of the DRT Jaipur for transferring the Original & Misc. Applications and the Execution Proceedings pending before the DRT Jaipur to the DRT Chandigarh pursuant to the directions of the DRAT Bombay or office order dated 18th April, 2000 (Annex.2); and (3) direct the Presiding Officer of the DRT Jaipur to dispose of the cases in accordance with law.(2). An interim relief was also sought for staying...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »