Rajasthan Court January 2010 Judgments

Sompal Singh Vs. State Farm Corporation of India Ltd. and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of punishment dated 25.4.2006 by which the respondent found the petitioner guilty in the departmental enquiry and the petitioner has been punished by taking a lenient view of withholding of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect as well as the appellate order dated 20. 12.2006.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority both have not considered the evidence on record and there is insufficient evidence on the basis of which the petitioner was found guilty.4. From the facts, it appears that the petitioner was posted and working as field-man at the relevant time at Central State Fam Hissar and during this time, some excess medicine/pesticides were sprayed over the standing crop of wheat, resulting into complete damage to some part of the crop, causing loss of Rs. 75,000/-. The disciplinary author...

Chema Ram Vs. State of Raj. and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

1. The appellant-petitioner by filing the writ petition in the year 2004 (CWP No. 158/2005) attempted to submit that his land as comprised in khasra No. 432 at village Dhorimana District Barmer, was acquired in the year 1976 for construction of road; and that no compensation was paid to him by the Government.2. In the impugned order dated 8.2.2007, the learned Single Judge of this Court declined to interfere in the writ jurisdiction while observing that the appellant- petitioner failed to produce the requisite documents to show as to how, if at all, the proceedings of land acquisition were adopted and concluded. The learned Single Judge further observed that if award had been passed in favour of a wrong person or was inadequate, the same could have been challenged in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge found no reason to interfere in the matter by entertaining the writ petition when the appellant-petitioner attempted to raise the controversy for the first time after a long pe...

Madan Lal Sen Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner who was serving as Constable, remained absent from duty on 19.6.2007 without prior leave or information and the charge was framed against the petitioner that because of his absence, one accused, who was sent to the Court with some other constables, ran away. However, the substantial charge against the petitioner is that he remained absent from duty.3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not on duty on 19.6.2007 and continued to remain absent upto 22.8.2007. The petitioner took the plea in the departmental enquiry that because of the profuse vomiting of his wife with blood, he after information on telephone left the place of duty and thereafter because of his own sickness, he remained absent from 7.7.2007 to 25.7.2007 and thereafter, because of the sickness his children, he could not report on duty from 26.7.2007 to 22.8.2007. The defence taken by the petitioner was not accepted by the disciplinary a...

Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner after completion of requisite period of service on attaining the age of superannuation retired from service from 30th April, 2007. The petitioner's pension case was not finalized because of the objection raised by the Accounts Officer of the Pension Department of the Government of Rajasthan whereas the employer -Assistant Engineer concerned informed the department that petitioner has rightly been fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 1850/- and he has not been wrongly fixed in the said pay scale. The Assistant Engineer vide communication dated 13.8.2007 further informed that excess amount paid to the petitioner has already been recovered, but even after this communication, the GPO was issued after deducting amount of Rs. 53,959/- from the due amount of the petitioner on the above two counts.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's pay fixation was made by virtue of order passed by the compe...

Shri Balaji Marble Mines Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj715

Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. In the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner made following prayer:(i) The impugned order dated 14.6.2007 (Annexure 15) may kindly be quashed and set aside with all its natural consequences as if, it was never passed and issued; and(ii) The order dated 14.6.2007(Annexure 15) may be declared illegal, unreasonable and arbitrary and the respondents may be restrained from interfering/disturbing the sanction order dated 19.7.2006 in any way.(iii) During pendency of the writ petition, if any order is passed prejudicial to the rights and interests of the petitioner, the same may also be quashed and set aside.2. The petitioner is dealing in quarrying of marble stone and sale thereof. Quarry No. 241, range Kola Doongari, Makrana for mineral marble was initially sanctioned in favour of M/s. Makrana Marble and Stone Co. Makrana on October 1, 1965 which was renewed from time to time. By order dated June 12, 2006 the aforesaid quarry c...

Mahendra Kumar and ors. Vs. State

Court: Rajasthan

N.P. Gupta, J.1. The three appellants Mahendra Kumar, Brij Lal and Rai Singh seek to challenge the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar dated 15.7.1986 passed in Sessions Case No. 89/85 convicting each of them for the offences under Section 302, 302 read with Section 34, 323, 323 read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing each of them for the offence under Section 302 with imprisonment for life, also sentencing each of them for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC for imprisonment for life and under Section 323 sentencing to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 323/34 also sentencing to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment. All substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The brief facts are, that one Balram P.W. 5 lodged a First Information Report on 12.11.1985 at 11.30 in the night at Police Station Sadulshahar being Ex. P/9, to the effect, that their agricultural land is situated in Chak 27 MJD Rohi Chapawali and near that is the land of their fath...

The State of Rajasthan Vs. Misariya and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State seeking to challenge the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore dated 17.12.1986 acquitting all the respondents of all the charges being under Section 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC.2. The necessary facts are that one Babu Ram P.W. 1 gave information at Police Station Ahore on 6.5.1986 at 9 A.M. (Ex. D-2) to the effect that there exists enmity between them with Meenas, and in the morning when he was in the house he heard a cry that when his brother Ganesha was passing through in front of the house of Meena, Meenas started beating him, therefore, he straight-way rushed to Guda Balotan, and from there he come to the police station by travelling in a bus. He has maintained that he did not go on the spot, and does not know as to who had given beating, and what is the magnitude of the injuries received. Since this information did not disclose any cognisable offence an entry was made in the Rojnamcha, and S.H.O. Gom Si...

Gaje Singh Vs. Raj. State Warehousing Corporation and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is praying for quashing of Annex. 5 and 6 by which the promotions were given to persons who according to the petitioner are junior to him and petitioner's candidature was rejected for promotion.3. The petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant in respondent-department and he joined the duties on 15.12.1966. Shri Charan Singh Yad and Brijpal Singh came in service on 16.12.1966 and 19.12.1966 respectively. Therefore, according to the petitioner he was senior to those two persons. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Manager and to the post of Senior Manager and according to him he was performing his duties with sincerity. The petitioner's name was shown at S. No. 5 in the seniority list and he was going to retire in Jan., 1998.4. According to the petitioner for some vested interest the ACRs of the petitioner was lowered down by some marking for the year 1993-94. However, this adverse remarks were commu...

Rajasthan High Court Non-gazetted Ministerial Staff Association Throug ...

Court: Rajasthan

Prakash Tatia, J.1. The petitioner Rajasthan High Court Non-Gazetted Ministerial Staff Association, Jodhpur has preferred this writ petition to challenge the order dated 8.9.2009 (Annex.7) of Hon'ble the Chief Justice amending the one of eligibility criteria for recruitment of translators in High Court and notification dated 17.9.2009 inviting applications for recruitment of translators from amongst the Judicial Assistants and Junior Judicial Assistants having three years experience in the establishment of Rajasthan High Court and who possesses qualification of M.A. (English Literature).2. Earlier for recruitment for the post of translators, Rules were framed in the year 2002 which are Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002. Relevant Rule 5 of the Rules of 2002 is as under:(5) TRANSLATORS ( ORDINARY SCALE). Recruitment to the post of Translator (Ordinary Scale) shall be made on the recommendation of a Committee nominated by the Appointing Authority on the criteria of selection ...

JaIn Vishva Bharti Institute Vs. District Judge and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj895

Sangeet Lodha, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 12.10.01 passed by the District Judge, Merta in Arbitration Application No. 50/01 directing it to appoint Arbitrator on its behalf, the arbitration proceeding initiated by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted in pursuant thereto and the award dated 13.12.04 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.2. In nutshell the relevant facts are that the petitioner institute which is a deemed to be university notified under Section 3 of the University Grant Commission Act, 1956, invited the designs from Architects all over the country to develop university's new campus. After considering the various proposal received the design proposed by the respondent No. 2 M/s. Matharoo Associates was selected and accordingly, after deliberation and negotiation an agreement dated 24.5.93 was entered into with the respondent No. 2 for providing professional services for the project.3. It was agreed upon between the parties under the agree...