Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(4)Raj2142; 2003(3)WLC675
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 20.6.1991 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 5.9.1983 (Annex. R/1) passed by the Chief Security Officer, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi by which the petitioner was removed from service and the appellate order dated 5.3.1985 (Annex. 10) passed by the respondent No. 2 Director General by which the appeal of the petitioner against order of removal (Annex. R/1) was dismissed, be quashed and set aside.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows :-The petitioner was employee in capacity as Rakshak in the. Railway Protection Force of respondents and he was at the relevant time posted at Jodhpur.The case of the petitioner is that on 15.1.1981, he received a message about the illness of his wife and thereafter, he went to his village, but without obtaining prio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2003Raj164; RLW2003(2)Raj705
Calla, J. 1. These matters have come up before us on the basis of order dated 28.8.2002 passed by the Division Bench whereby the following questions law of considerable importance have been referred as also the appeals as a whole:-1. Whether any reserved quota could not be separately specified for in-service candidates; merely because such in- service category is not mentioned in Article 15(4) and/or 16(4) of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the prescribing of separate quota for in-service candidates stands, the test of reasonable classification under Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 3. Whether in view of the observations made by the Supreme court in para 10 in the case of State of Punjab v. Dayanand Medical College and Hospital and Ors. (supra), can it be said that once the Medical Council of India has prescribed 50% qualifying marks through regulation 9, there is no question of making any in-service candidate to be qualified for admission to post- graduate course at any ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(3)Raj1605; 2003(3)WLC359
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 6.8.1991 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 17.6.1991 (Annex. 5) passed by the respondent No. 2 Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Pali by which the services of the petitioner were dispensed with and the resolution dated 14.6.1991 (Annex. 6) passed by the Panchayat Samiti, Pali by which a decision was taken against the petitioner as he used to remain absent from duties and the respondent No. 2 yikas Adhikari was authorised to take steps for dispensing with the services of the petitioner, be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows :-The petitioner had passed Higher Secondary and S.T.C. examinations conducted in Rajasthan and he was initia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(2)Raj1234; 2003(2)WLC16
Parihar, J.1. Respondent No. 2 (the concerned employee) was initially appointed as Teacher in S.S. Jain Subodh Balika Senior Secondary School, Jaipur till the end of session vide order dated 1.7.1987. Against a fresh appointment was given on the post of Teacher vide order dated 1.7.1988 and thereafter, the concerned employee was further given appointment on the post of Teacher till 16.5.1990 vide order dated 12.7.1989 which was lastly continued upto 31.8.1990 vide order dated 18.7.1990.2. Subsequently, the concerned employee was given adhoc appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk for the period from 1.7.1991 till 16.5.1992 vide order dated 26th September, 1991 in another institution i.e. S.S. Jain Subodh Balika Senior Secondary School, Jaipur. The respondent employee continued to get such adhoc appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk till the end of session of the year 1992-93 also and lastly, the concerned workman was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk purel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(1)Raj632; 2003(2)WLC1
Singh, C.J. 1. Since, the point involved in the matter is short one, we proceed to dispose of the same with the consent of the parties today itself.2. The appellant was enroled in the Army on 13.11.1967. At the time of his enrolment he was placed in medical category A. While in service he fell ill. As a consequence of his illness, he was boarded out of the Army on 19.10.1968 with medical category E. The Medical Board, which was convened before the appellant was boarded out of service, assessed his disability at 100%.3. After being boarded out, the appellant filed a representation to the concerned authority for grant of disability pension. The representation however, was rejected.4. The appellant being aggrieved by the rejection of his demand for disability pension, filed a writ petition before this Court.5. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 27.11.2002 allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to grant the benefit of disability pension to the appellant w.e.f. 22.10...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(2)Raj1088; 2003(3)WLC330; 2003(2)WLN505
Garg, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be restrained from effecting any recovery mentioned in the Audit Report (Annex. 3) to the tune of Rs. 19,000/- and further they may be directed to make payment of difference of pay between first grade and Second grade teacher treating the petitioner to be holding the post of Teacher 1st Grade from Nov., 1979.2. It may be stated here that in this writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his argument to the recovery of amount as mentioned in Audit Report (Annex. 3) and he does not want to press other arguments.3. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under :(i) That the petitioner's first appointment was made on 1.9.55 as a third grade teacher in the Education Department. Government of Rajasthan in the substantive capacity. (ii) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2003(3)WLC111; 2003(1)WLN483
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners on 8.9.1988 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 25.10.1985 (Ex. 6) passed by the learned Addl. Collector, Jalore (respondent No. 2), by which a reference under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1956') was made to the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (respondent No. 1) with the prayer that mutation No. 2 dated 15.11.1959 ordered by Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Narsana in respect of agriculture land bearing Khasra No. 422 measuring 33 Bigha 5 Biswas situated in village Lunawas in favour of the deceased Sagar Mal and present petitioners be cancelled as it was entered in the revenue record in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955') and the judgment dated 16.12...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2005]142STC498(Raj)
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This special appeal by the State is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated November 22, 2001. This order was modified by order dated March 18, 2002. Having perused both the orders we are satisfied that the special appeal deserves to be dismissed.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti-Evasion II, Rajasthan, Circle-I, Jaipur, intercepted the truck bearing No. RJ-19 G-2360 on September 25, 1999 and found that it was not carrying the requisite documents referred in Sub-section (2) of Section 78 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. In view of this, notice under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was given on October 26, 1999. On the same day, another notice was given under Section 83 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. The reply to show cause notice was given and the A.C.T.O. passed an order dated November 19, 1999 imposing penalty of Rs. 38,939 under the provision of Section 78...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(2)Raj983; 2003(2)WLC501
Bansal, J. 1. As many as six accused were put on trial before the learned Special Judge (Communal riots cases) and Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk in Sessions Case No. 36/97. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused Kajod of all the charges and convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants Raja Ram @ Raju,Kistura, Prabhu Lal, Ganesh and Ram Avtar vide its judgment and order dated July 25, 1998 as under:-(1) Raja Ram @ Rajuu/Sec. 302/149IPC Life imprisonment with afine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergotwo months' rigorous imprisonment.u/See. 324/149 u/Sec. 323 IPCu/Sec. 148 IPCIPC One year's rigorousimprisonment. Six months' rigorous imprisonment. Six months' rigorousimprisonment.(2) Ganeshu/Sec. 302/149 IPCLife imprisonment with a fineof Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergotwo months' rigorous imprisonment.u/Sec. 324 IPCu/Sec. 323 IPC u/Sec. 148 IPCOne year's rigorousimprisonment Six months' rigorous imprisonment Six ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2004(5)WLC770; 2003(3)WLN107
Ashok Parihar, J.1. The dispute regarding termination of services of respondent No. 1 (the concerned workman) was referred to the Labour Court, Ajmer, for adjudication by the State Government vide notification dated 31.3.1990. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence and material on record, held the punishment, imposed on the concerned workman, to be shockingly disproportionate, as such, using its discretion, as provided under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court reduced the punishment of dismissal into stoppage of two grade Increments with cumulative effect, vide award dated 16.7.1996. The backwages were also not allowed to the concerned workman. The award dated 16.7.1996, passed by the Labour Court, is under challenge in the present writ petition.2. The charge on the basis of which the termination was made has been that the concerned workman was found carrying two passengers without tickets with a further allegation that no fare had also been charged f...
Tag this Judgment!