Rajasthan Court December 2006 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.
Lrs. of Rashida Gajdar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN64
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. The petitiones who are LRs of Smt. Rashida Gajdar in this writ petition have claimed the benefit of selection scale. Smt. Rashida was serving the respondent as Teacher having been appointed as such in the year 1965. She continuously served the respondent up to 31st January, 2002 and then she retired on attaining the age of superannuation.2. According to the petitioners, she was entitled to the benefit of selection scale made admissible to the Government Teachers by Circular dated 25th January, 1992 on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. The scheme envisaged in the aforesaid circular was that in case the government servant has not been granted at least one promotion in service span of 9 years, he/she shall be entitled to selection scale corresponding to the scale of pay of the post of promotion.3. The respondents have contested the writ petition and have submitted that their society is receiving grant in aid only in relation to secondary section of the scho...
State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Gopal Bohra and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN419
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The short issue raised in this appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in substituting the award of payment of compensation in lieu of illegal retrenchment with reinstatement alongwith consequential benefits.2. The respondent workman was employed under Executive Engineer, PWD, Phalodi Division for a total period from 11.04.1988 to 31.12.1988 and his services were terminated from 01.01.1989. The termination was subject matter of industrial dispute which was referred to Labour Court, Jodhpur. By award dated 20.09.1999 the learned Labour Court found that the respondent workman having been in continuous service for one year, having actually worked for 240 days during the entire period of his service, his retrenchment could have been validly affected only by complying with the conditions of retrenchment under Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Admittedly, there having been no compliance of Section 25-F...
Sahil Guest House Vs. Employees State Insurance Corp.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN242
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellant's unit is hotel and according to respondent Employees State Insurance Corporation since the appellant is falling in the definition of factory as given in Section 2(12) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, and engaged in manufacturing process as defined in Sub-section (14-AA) of Section 2 of the Act of 1948 read with Sub-clause (k) in Section 2 of the Factories Act, the appellant's unit is though, a hotel is a factually engaged in manufacturing process and therefore is covered under the E.S.I. Act, 1948. The contention of the appellant is that the appellant is not engaged in manufacturing process nor a factory and not engaging in manufacturing process.3. The E.S.I. Court vide its order dt. 4th March 2006 held that the appellant is engaged in manufacturing process as per the Clause 2k of the Factories Act, 1948.4. I considered submission of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant provis...
Chief Settlement Officer and ors. Vs. Ladu Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN134
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by learned Single Judge dated 21.08.2006. The appeal has arisen in the following circumstances.2. According to Annexure 1 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar who was also the Managing Officer (Rehabilitation) informed the Tehsildar (Revenue), Sri Ganganagar that the sanad of allotment of land was issued on 26.09.1973 in favour of Prema Ram S/o Ramdas and members of his family namely his wife Smt. Chunni, son Kheta, brother. Majnu, Sukha, wife of his brother Rakma, wife of Koja, his niece Hardeva and his daughter Shanti. The Sanad was issued in the name of these nine persons but in the land record the name of only Prema Ram was recorded as Khetader. Therefore, directions to correct the land record to accord with the Sanad of allotment issued in favour of these nine persons were issued vide order dated 03.11.2004.3. Against this order one Ladu Ram filed an appeal in the Court of Additional District Collector...
Ram Pratap and anr. Vs. Baldeo Raj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN351
Rajesh Balia, J.1. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that report may be called from District Judge, Hanumangarh that when Addl. District Judge, Fast Track has expressed his inability to hear Civil Suit No. 286/2005 (Baldeo Ram and Anr. v. Ram pratap and Ors.), which was pending at District Hqurs., Hanumangarh, in what circumstances the case has been transferred to another Court situated far away from District Hqurs. to the detriment of the convenience of the parties, who have chosen their forum at Hanumangarh. If no other officer was available District Judge himself could have tried the said civil suit.2. The application by Addl. District Judge expressing his inability to hear the case cannot be ground for transferring a case from Hanumangarh to another place. He could at best have recused himself from hearing of the case for the reasons best known to him but ultimately he could not have sought the case to be transferred from Hanumangarh to another place. We ord...
Jai Kishan Dutta Vs. State of Rajsthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN452
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant we are satisfied that no interference is called for in this appeal.2. The appellant was transferred from his present place Central Jail, Jodhpur to Central Jail, Udaipur which has been challenged inter alia on the ground that the transfer was punitive in nature. In the first instance, an appeal was preferred before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal which found the transfer of the appellant to be in administrative exigency and not punitive in nature. The order of the Tribunal was challenged by way of writ petition which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Agreeing with the finding recorded by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that nothing has been placed on record to suggest that the decision was punitive in any sense. Merely because before transfer the petitioner appellant was subjected to a departmental inquiry in which he was found guilty and was visited with a minor penalty, the subsequent ...
Lahiri Vs. Prem Prakash
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Raj85
ORDERVineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal Under Section 96, CPC. is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27-2-1986 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar, decreeing the Civil Suit No. 48/82 filed by plaintiff-Prem Prakash seeking specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 6-11-1978 by which defendant-Lahiri agreed to sell his 1/4th share of the agricultural land, as specified in the plaint as well as in the impugned judgment, to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 13,000/- under which an advance of Rs. 2,000/- was paid to the defendant and the said Agreement Ex. 1 was executed on a stamp paper which was duly notarised.2. According to the plaintiff, when the defendant refused to execute the sale deed though the plaintiff expressed his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and pay the balance amount under the said agreement of Rs. 11,000/-, the plaintiff preferred the present suit seeking specific performance of the con...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Alladvaua and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN160
Rajesh Balia, J.1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties also on merit. The appellant has challenged the orders passed by the Board of Revenue [Annexure 6] and the Revenue Appellate Authority [Annexure 3] which is passed on the merit about the claim raised by the respondent in respect of land in question finding him to be Khatedar tenant as heir of Pari Khan, the original Khatedar. The revision has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue solely on the ground that the revision petitioner has not explained day to day delay of three days.2. We are of the opinion that it is now well settled that if there is sufficient reason for not preferring the appeal/revision within limitation then thereafter it is not essential to explain day to day delay provided the appellant has acted bonafidely and within reasonable time.3. In that view of the matter, the order of Board of Revenue cannot be sustained. So far as merit of the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority is concerned that ought to...
Archana Ruhela (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN400
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Additional Advocate General states that since the matter hinges on interpretation of the Notification, no reply is necessary.2. The sole controversy raised in this case is about the fact whether the petitioner is a Member of Other Backward Class as notified under the Rajasthan. Petitioner was born and educated in Uttar Pradesh and the Caste Certificate issued in her name described her caste to be 'Chhipi' in her maiden status. By marriage she became domiciled of Rajasthan and was married to Atma Ram 'Chhipa' Her domicile and caste certificate issued by Rajasthan described her caste as 'Chhipa'.3. She had applied to participate in the selection for appointment as medical officer in pursuance of advertisement dated 05.07.2005 issued by the respondents and she was issued her identity card in the category of OBC (Women) candidate. However, when the result was declared, she was not called for interview by rejecting her candid...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Miss. Ruksana
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN390
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in this appeal.2. The respondent-petitioner applied for the post of Senior Teacher in Urdu. The petitioner's candidature was not considered inter alia on the ground that she did not had an additional subject apart from Urdu, which is being taught in secondary level at schools. The rejection of her candidature was challenged by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3166/2000.3. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that her candidature was wrongfully excluded from consideration. While the eligibility for the post of Senior Teacher was prescribed to be graduate, or equivalent examination, with at least two subjects taught in schools with degree or diploma in edcation, or Montessori training, it was clarified by the State Government vide Annexure-A/1 that where a Senior Teacher is to be appointed in a minority language, he/she should have one additional subject in his graduation, which is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »