Rajasthan Court May 2007 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.
MehardIn Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN563
Govind Mathur, J.1. By this petition for writ, the petitioner has claimed for pension and other retiral benefits being a retired government servant. It is contended in petition for writ that the petitioner on achieving the age of 60 years retired from the services of the Department of Forest on 03.04.2001. The respondent vide a Pension Payment Order No. 636831 allowed provisional pension to the petitioner, however, no regular pension was given to him.2. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has completed qualifying service as prescribed under the relevant Rules and, therefore, is entitled for getting regular pension.3. In reply to the writ petition, the contention of the respondents is that by an order dt. 14.07.1999, the petitioner was taken on regular cadre of the government service with application of Rajasthan Civil Service Rules, 1951, however, the order aforesaid was withdrawn by the Dy. Conservator of Forest, Indira Gandhi Nahr Pariyojna, Stage-II D...
Girija Vs. Sh. Divya Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN41
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Since identical questions of law and facts are involved in all these matters, we proceed to decide them by a common order.2. Admittedly in the petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short 'Act') on the ground of adultery, by the husband Divya Kumar against his wife Girija, the person with whom the wife was alleged to have the illicit relationship was not impleaded as co-respondent.3. Along with the said petition of husband, two other petitions filed by the wife Girija under Section 9 of the Act and under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, were tied and as many as 8 issues were framed, out of which issue No. 2 was as under:Whether respondent (wife) had illicit relations with Anoop Jindal and she was living adulterous life.4. We have heard the submissions advanced before us by learned Counsel for the parties.5. In not impleading Anoop Jindal as co-respondent, the husband Divya Kumar flouted the provisions contained i...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›