Rajasthan Court June 2004 Judgments
Siddh Nath Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2764
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The prayer of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is as under:'(i) to direct respondents to pay the post retirement benefits as admissible to the employees of Union of India such as pension, Group Insurance and other post retirement benefits along with interest to the petitioner;(ii) to treat the petitioner in service as Assistant Manager (Depot) Food Corporation of India Dholpur till March 31,1985 and to pay him duty salary for month of March, 1985 along with interest.2. Contextual facts depict that the petitioner came to be appointed as Enquiry Inspector in the department of Food and Civil Supplies, U.P. Vide order dated July 1, 1947. The petitioner was declared surplus and retrenched due to the General Retrenchment Scheme on July 2, 1953. On the basis of six years experience the benefit was provided to retrenched employees and the petitioner was selected for the appointment in the cadre of Verification Inspector in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Chakrabarti Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2757; 2004(4)WLC180
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner has approached this court with the following prayer:-'(i) to direct respondent Bank to grant pension to the petitioner from September 27, 1994 the date he was relieved from the Bank, after extending benefit of Pension Scheme by providing a chance to exercise the option for the Pension Scheme. (ii) to declare unconstitutional the provisions contained in Regulation 22 of the S.B.B.J. (Employees) Pension Regulation 1995, to the extent of non-exclusion of those employees who tendered resignation after the Pension Scheme was notified.(iii) to treat the resignation letter of the petitioner as his voluntary retirement.'2. Contextual facts depict that the petitioner after being appointed as Probationer Officer on January 16, 1974 in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (for short 'SBBJ') occupied various posts at different places and was finally promoted as Chief Manager in the year 1989. While working on the same post the petitioner was advised to join o...
Tag this Judgment!Shalini Singh (Miss) Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj21; 2004(4)WLC559
Sharma, J.1. Since all these writ petitions relate to Advertisement dated October 1, 2001 notified by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'RPSC) for the direct recruitment to the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector, they are taken up together for the disposal.2. Contextual facts depict that as many as 71 vacancies for male and 31 for female were advertised by the RPSC on October 1, 2001 for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector. Pursuant to the advertisement all the petitioners submitted applications and were allowed to appear in the written examination that was qualified by all the petitioners. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected by the RPSC on the ground that on the last date of submission of application form i.e. November 19, 2001 the petitioners did not posses eligibility requirement incorporated in the advertisement. This act of respondent RPSC in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners has been assailed in these writ petitions.3. In the return submitt...
Tag this Judgment!Navneet Bansal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj23; 2004(4)WLC379
Sharma, J.1. Since all these writ petitions relate to Advertisement dated October 1, 2001 notified by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'RPSC') for the direct recruitment to the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector, they are taken up together for the disposal.2. Contextual facts depict that as many as 71 vacancies for male and 31 for female were advertised by the RPSC on October 1, 2001 for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector. Pursuant to the advertisement all the petitioners submitted applications and were allowed to appear in the written examination that was qualified by all the petitioners. The candidature of the petitioners was rejected by the RPSC on the ground that on the last date of submission of application form i.e. November 19, 2001 the petitioners did not posses eligibility requirement incorporated in the advertisement. This act of respondent RPSC in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners has been assailed in these writ petitions.3. The petitioners Vik...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Pal Singh (Dr.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj37a; 2004(4)WLC201
Sharma, J.1. Prayer of the petitioner in the instant writ petition under:-'(i) to quash the charges sheets, entire enquiry proceedings, enquiry report dated October 28, 1996 and the punishment order dated October 8, 1998 and direct the respondents to release the petitioner's post pensionary benefits of gratuity and Commutation of Pension which were payable to him on the date of his retirement i.e. August 31, 1995 along with interest.(ii) if during the pendency of writ petition 30% pension amount is withdrawn, the same be directed to be paid back to the petitioner along with interest.2. Contextual facts depict that the petitioner stood retired on August 31, 1995 as Assistant Project Officer (RPS Scheme) Prior to his retirement the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated March 4, 1994 under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (for short 'CCA Rules'). As per the memorandum the petitioner was charged in respect of his tenure whi...
Tag this Judgment!Mukesh Garg (Dr.) and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-16-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1718; 2004(3)WLC639
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Since in all these writ petitions similar question of law is involved, these writ petitions are decided by this common judgment.2. The petitioners who are selected through RPSC and substantially appointed as Medical Officer/Civil Assistant Surgeon, have filed these present writ petitions seeking writ order or direction that the circular/instruction so issued by the University of Rajasthan for Pre-P.G. Medical Examination 2004 for admission to MD/MS/Diploma Courses by which adhoc/temporary/contract employees have been permitted to appear in the said Examination in the category of 'in-service', be declared illegal. All those candidates who are working on adhoc/temporary/consolidated salary should not be treated as 'inservice' candidates and their merit should be determined along with general candidates.3. Beside the aforesaid prayer the petitioner also challenged the provisions of validity of Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Services Rules of 1963 (for short,...
Tag this Judgment!Dara Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-11-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj32; 2005WLC(Raj)UC426
Sharma, J.1. Facts of these matters remind me the speech of late NANI A. PALKHIWALA delivered at Privity College. Cambridge on November 7, 1990. In the lecture titled 'FORTY THREE YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE,' PALKHIWALA said-'Perceptive observers in foreign countries where Indians work and prosper are baffled by one question-how does India, with its great human potential and natural resources manage to remain poor The answer is that we are not poor by nature but poor by polity. You would not be far wrong if you called India the World's leading expert in the art of perpetuating poverty.'These matters may be cited as an example to show the skill of certain officials of the State of Rajasthan in perpetuating the poverty and rendering Diploma Holders in Civil Engineering, Jobless.2. Since questions of law and fact involved in all these matters are identical, they were heard analogously and are being taken up together for disposal. Common prayer of the petitioners in all these matters is to set ...
Tag this Judgment!The Coordinator of All India Engineering/Pharmacy/Architects Entrance ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-10-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1700; 2005(1)WLC387
Anil Dev Singh C.J.1. These three appeals by the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Secondary & Higher Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi; the Coordinator, All India Engineering/Pharmacy/Architects Entrance Examination (AIEEE), Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi; and All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi, are directed against the judgment & order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated April 02, 2004, rendered in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2379/2003, whereby the Policy Notification dated October 18, 2001 of the Government of India, Department of Secondary Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development relating to framework for admission to engineering, architecture and pharmacy courses at undergraduate level in the country; the letter o the University Grants Commission dated December 06, 2001 informing the various institutions that the Government of India had resolved to conduct an All India...
Tag this Judgment!iqbal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-04-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4163
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2), Cr. P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 27-6-2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter) in sessions case No. 44/2003 whereby the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 326, 324, 447 and 427, I.P.C. and sentenced him as under :Under Section 326, I.P.C. -- 5 years' RI and a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' RIUnder Section 324, I.P.C. -- 1 year RI Under Section 447, I.P.C. -- 1 months' RI Under Section 427, I.P.C. -- 3 months' R.I.All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.2. Briefly stated the facts which are relevant and necessary for the decision of this appeal are that on 8-11-2002 at about 10.40 p.m., P.W. 11 Ram Singh...
Tag this Judgment!Ladu Ram Vs. Gyatri Devi (Smt.) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-03-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2065; 2004(3)WLC766
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This is the revision under Section 115 C.P.C. filed by the defendant-petitioner Ladu Ram against the order dated 10.1.2003, whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, affirmed the order dated 29.4.2000 by which Additional Civil Judge (West), Jaipur City, Jaipur, dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C.2. Briefly narrated the facts are that the plaintiff Smt. Gyatri filed a suit for rent and eviction against the two defendants Mangal Singh and Ladu Ram - the present petitioner in November 1995 with the averments that one room in her house at Jaipur was let out to the defendant No. 1 Mangal Singh on monthly rent of Rs. 16/-. The eviction was sought on the grounds of default in payment of rent, the tenant has built his own house and sub-let the room to his brother-the defendant No. 2 Ladu Ram and material alterations. Both the defendants appeared through their counsel on 16.1.1996. At their prayer the case was adjourned for filing ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »