Rajasthan Court June 2009 Judgments
Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank and anr. Vs. Smt. Paramjeet Kau ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-30-2009
Reported in: (2010)ILLJ386Raj; RLW2009(4)Raj2987; 2009(3)WLN259
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this miscellaneous appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, the petitioners are challenging the award of the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Sriganganagar dt. 04.04.2005 passed in compensation Case No. 43/92, whereby, award of Rs. 63,920/- by way of compensation, Rs. 31,960/- by way of penalty and Rs. 19,176/- by way of interest was passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Sriganganagar in favour of the claimant respondent Smt. Paramjeet Kaur.2. Brief facts of the case are that a claim was filed by the sole respondent Smt. Paramjeet Kaur Wd/o Santosh Singh, wherein, it was stated that husband of the claimant was an employee of the Punjab National Bank and was transferred to Suratgarh from his earlier place of posting at Ranauli (district Sikar). Deceased Santosh Singh was relieved from Ranauli in the after-noon of 16.10.1990 wherefrom he reported at the R.M. Office, Sriganganagar. Further, he was directed to join duty...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Kaushik (Dr.) Vs. Smt. Kushal Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-30-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN304
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this contempt petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents for non implementation of the judgment dt. 16.07.2007 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No. 952/2006 which has been upheld by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 45/2008 State of Rajasthan v. Dr. V.K. Kaushik and Anr. by dismissing the said writ petition on 16.09.2008.2. Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents are not implementing the judgment of the Tribunal dt. 16.07.2007 particularly even after the dismissal of writ petition against the said judgment of Tribunal, therefore contempt proceedings should be initiated against them.3. The petitioner has directly approached this Court for initiation of the contempt proceedings simply on the ground that the writ petition against the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal was dismissed on 16.09.2008. The dismis...
Tag this Judgment!Janki Bai and ors. Vs. Sunmala Jalan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-30-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj700
Guman Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. All these appeals are being decided together as they arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned Tribunal which is under challenge.3. CMA No. 71/99 (Claim Case No. 6/98) has been preferred on behalf of appellant-dependents of deceased Birdhilal for enhancement of compensation, while CMA No. 283/99 (Claim Case No. 6/98) is a cross appeal which has been preferred by the Insurance Company as against the judgment in claim case No. 6/98 and the third appeal CMA No. 517/99 (Claim Case No. 65/97) has been preferred by the injured-appellant Ashok Kumar for enhancement of compensation. All the appeals have been filed against the Judgment & award dated 26.9.1998 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran whereby a sum of Rs. 5,30,000/- was awarded by way of compensation to the dependents of deceased Birdhilal who died in an accident while a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded to injured Ashok Kumar for the injuries ...
Tag this Judgment!Lr of Keshar Deo Lohia Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-29-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN38
ORDERDinesh Maheshwari, J.1. While stating the grievance that he has been deprived of his property in an unlawful manner; and that he has been dispossessed without due process of law, the petitioner Keshar Deo Lohia (since deceased and represented by his son) filed this writ petition on 03.01.1989 claiming the reliefs in the form: that writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to vacate the property in dispute; that further writ of mandamus be issued for demolition of the constructions made by the respondents on the property in dispute; that with a writ of certiorari, the orders passed against the right, title and interest of the petitioner be quashed; and that by a writ of prohibition, the respondents be restrained from encroaching upon the property in dispute.2. The reliefs aforesaid have been claimed in relation to the plots of land said to be bearing numbers 9, 11, 29, 30, 31, 32, 76, 79, 80, 98, 119, 120, 140, 141, 164 and 165 situated near Railway Station, Churu (also ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kumar and ors. Vs. A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-29-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj39; 2009(3)WLN113
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The application seeking immediate order for ejectment of the tenants from the demised premises (Case No. 1/1997: Old No. 10/1996) as made by the respondent No. 3 (hereinafter also referred to as 'the applicant' / 'the landlord') on 10.06.1996 with reference to the provisions of Section 16 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' / 'the Act of 1950') came to be allowed by the Additional District Magistrate, Banswara on 13.05.1997 making an order for ejectment of the tenants from the suit premises. The order so passed on 13.05.1997 was challenged by the tenants under Section 16(11) of the Act of 1950 in Civil Revision Petition No. 1/2005 that came to be dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Banswara by the impugned order dated 15.12.2005. Aggrieved, the tenants in the first place preferred a regular first appeal (CFA No. 77/2006) that was dismissed by this Court on 12.05.2006 as being incompetent....
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-29-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN142
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. At the request of learned Counsel for the parties the writ petition was heard finally and is being disposed of.2. Petitioner preferred this writ petition challenging the order dt. 03.12.1998 (Annexure-4) passed by respondent No. 3, the District Education Officer (Elementary) Sawaimadhopur, thereby the respondent rejected the application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment in place of his father late Shri Mohan Lal Jain, who died while in service on 12.09.1998, on the ground that Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, elder son of late Shri Mohan Lal Jain, is already in Government service.3. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that late Shri Mohan Lal Jain, father of the petitioner, died while in service on 12.09.1998 and, as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Rules of 1996'), the petitioner moved an application for ...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kumar Meena Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-29-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN361
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction to consider his candidature as per the merit secured by him in the written RPSC examination and to declare him selected in case he comes within the merit in the Scheduled Tribe quota and then to recommend his name for appointment on the post of Nurse Grade-II.2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that an advertisement dt. 27.08.2007 was issued for filling 1152 posts of Nurse Grade-II. According to the advertisement, relaxation was to be given to the candidates who were appearing in the Final Year Examination of R.N.R.C. and the result was not declared till then but they had to produce the proof of possessing the requisite educational qualification before the declaration of the result of the written examination by the RPSC. The result of the supplementary examination was declared on 20.12.2007 and the petitioner was declared passed in the final RNRC examination although t...
Tag this Judgment!Manju Rani Sharma (Smt.) Vs. Managing Committee and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-29-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN381
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. Since common question of termination of the petitioners is involved in all these aforesaid writ petitions, hence, they have been heard together and are being decided together by this common order.2. By the aforesaid writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the common order dt. 23.08.2008 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (in short 'the Tribunal') whereby individual appeals filed by the petitioners under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (in short 'the Act of 1989') have been dismissed and termination orders of respective petitioners have been upheld on the ground that the Management has a right to close down the Institution and the State Government cannot compel the Management to run the Institution.3. The brief facts of the case, as per the writ petitions, are that the respective petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 1994 in Nehru Bal Mandir,...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Chand JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-29-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN316
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. The petitioner was granted selection scale and his pay was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500. However, the same was revised and it was reduced to Rs. 5500-9000 with effect from 01.07.1998.2. Learned Counsel for both the parties contended that number of identical writ petitions were filed which were decided by the learned Single Bench in Chandra Mohan Singh and 185 Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2004 (3) WLC (Raj.) 413 and being aggrieved with the same, the State of Rajasthan preferred Special Appeal before the Division Bench i.e. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 208/2006, State of Rajasthan v. Raniwas Porwal, which was decided finally vide judgment dt. 13.12.2007 reported in : 2008 (2) RLW 1270 (Raj.), therefore, the present writ petition may be decided in the light of the decision rendered by the Division Bench in the above case and the same directions may be issued in the present case.3. The Division Bench in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Kunj Behari Meena Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-29-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN408
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to allow him to join duties in pursuance to the appointment order dt. 12.09.2008 (Anx.8) on the post of General Nurse Midwife (for short 'GNM') inter alia on the ground that the denial of joining on the said post on account of pendency of criminal case is contrary to the rules.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was called for counselling with reference to his application for appointment on the post of GNM on 11.08.2008 before the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Baran along with all original documents. After the counselling, the petitioner was selected on the post of GNM in National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) and offer of appointment was given on 12.09.2008 to join duties up to 29.09.2008 after completion of the formalities as mentioned in the order. At the time of joining, the petitioner was required to submit the police ve...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »