Rajasthan Court February 2010 Judgments
L.Rs. of Radhu Lal Vs. L.Rs. of Laxmi Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.1.2010 whereby the learned executing Court below overruled the objections of the judgment debtors LRs of Radhu S/o Modji Sanadhya, R/o Kankroli i.e. Gopal Lal in execution case No. 3/2008 whereby the main objection of the present petitioner/ judgment debtor that the kahsra number in the draft sale deed has been changed to another khasra number in final registered sale deed executed by the learned trial court in pursuance of a decree of specific performance on 23.2.2007.2. Mr. R.K. Thanvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner / judgment debtor submits that no such change of description of land in question could have been made in the final registered sale deed ex-parte to the present petitioners/ judgment debtors and, therefore, the objections have been wrongly overruled by the court below.3. On the other hand, Mr. S.L. Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent/decree holder submits that in the impugned order the...
Tag this Judgment!Dheer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
ORDER1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anoopgarh was directed to send the corpus Surjeet Kaur to Nari Niketan with assistance of lady constable and produce the corpus before this Court on 24.02.20 10. Today, in compliance of the said order dated 22. .02.2010, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anoopgarh has produced the corpus Surjeet Kaur before the Court.2. Counsel for respondent No. 3 has produced on record certificate issued by the municipality, Anoopgarh, by which, survey was conducted for issuing ration- cards, in which, the age of the corpus Surjeet Kaur has been shown as 11 years in the year 2002. Further, he has produced the marriage-certificate issued by Vivek Ashram dated 05.10.2009 along with ration-card issued in the year 1998 and submits that corpus Surjeet Kaur is 19 years of age and she has got married with Mastan Singh s/o Mahendra Singh on 03.09.2009 and he has also submitted the marriage album containing photographs of marriage; and, prayed that the corpus Surjee...
Tag this Judgment!Rfan Ahmed and ors Vs State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
1. Instant petition has been filed jointly by Eleven petitioners with the grievance that on being absorbed as Gram Sevak cum Sachiv vide orders dt.28/04/2000, 15/01/2001, 10/04/2000 & 13/03/2000 (Ann.1 to 5), they were placed on probation for two years on a consolidated salary of Rs.1200/- & despite expiry of period of probation, they have not been fixed in regular pay scale of the post and are still continued to be on fixed/consolidated salary. However, order has been passed by Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur on 13/08/2008 (Ann.8) giving regular pay scale of Gram Sevak who are appointed on fixed pay.2. Counsel for petitioners submits that once they have completed two years period of probation, they are entitled for the salary in regular pay scale of the post of Gram Sevak held by them and Circular dt.13/08/2008 has been issued by State Government also to this effect. Counsel further submits that an amendment was made in Rajasthan Ser...
Tag this Judgment!Tarun Mehta and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
Sangeet Lodha, J.1. These writ petitions involve a common question of law as regards to petitioners' legal right for renewal of the certificate of practice as a Notary, therefore, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The facts of writ petition No. 10569/09 'Tarun Mehta and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.' which was taken as a lead case by the learned Counsel for the parties for the purpose of arguments are being taken into consideration.3. The petitioners were appointed as notaries under the provisions of Notaries Act, 1952 (in short 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder namely, Notaries Rules, 1956 (in short 'the Rules') by the State Government by a common order dated 14.11.02. The petitioners were authorised to practice as notary in Pali, District Pali for a period of five years from the date of issuance of certificate in this regard. The certificates in terms of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 of the Rules were issued in their favour on 26....
Tag this Judgment!Gani Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
1. By order dated 14.10.2009, following question was settled for determination:WHETHER the Parole Committee/District Magistrate or any other Authority other than the Courts are authorized to release the convicts on parole under the Rajasthan Parole Rules, when the trial or appeal is pending?2. While meeting with the question aforesaid, it is contended by Shri NA Naqvi, learned Additional Advocate General, that the issue as to whether the Parole Committee/District Magistrate or any other Authority other than the Courts are authorized to release the convicts on parole under the Rajasthan Parole Rules, when the appeal is pending, was considered by Division Bench of this Court in Bhanwar Lal Godara v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 2005 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 434. The Division Bench in the case aforesaid held as under:10. It may thus be inferred that when a prisoner is released temporarily before the expiry of a sentence on the promise of return to jail, he is released on parole. To r...
Tag this Judgment!Begraj and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the controversy involved in these writ petitions has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 27.1.2010 delivered in SBCWP No. 8497/2008 - Manglaram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. which was decided with other connected writ petitions. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the present writ petitions may also be decided in the light of the decision dated 27.1.20 10 and same directions may be issued.2. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that there are several objections which are (i) the person who gave birth to child after cut off date and who had two children already is not an eligible candidate, (ii) some of the candidates were lacking experience, (iii) some of the candidates were over age and (iv) some of the candidates claimed benefit on the basis of their experience of working as Prerak. So far as other cases are concerned, the similar dire...
Tag this Judgment!C.P. Singh Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2010
ORDERMohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition was filed by petitioner at the time when he was reverted from post of Assistant Accounts Officer to that of Accountant. Petitioner was originally selected for promotion on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer against vacancies of the year 1992-93 on the recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee held on 11.04.1993 for considering the case of candidates for promotion against the vacancies for that year and subsequent two years, but that had to be reviewed pursuant to the directions issued by judgment dated 08.10.1993 of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 2427/1993 and Others. On the recommendations of review DPC, the petitioner was sought to be reverted and, vide order dated 07.09.1995, he was reverted back to the post of Accountant, and other candidates were promoted vide order dated 21.07.1995 against merit quota including respondent No. 3, which order he assailed in the present writ petition. However, the petitioner con...
Tag this Judgment!Resident Engineer, Rajasthan State Bridge and Construction Corporation ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2010
ORDERMohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3workman.2. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Resident Engineer, Rajasthan State Bridege & Construction Corporation Limited, Unit Sawaimadhopur, against Award dated 25.07.1996 of learned Labour Court, Bharatpur. A reference raising industrial dispute was made to Labour Court by the appropriate Government on the question whether action of petitioner in terminating services of respondent-workman with effect from 24.08.1987 was legal and valid and, if not, what relief was he entitled to? Learned Labour Court answered the reference in terms that removal of respondent-workman by petitioner from services was made in violation of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the ID Act') and, therefore, directed his reinstatement with continuity in service, but confined payment of back wages only for period from 25.08.1987 to 13.09.1988 and not thereafter up-to t...
Tag this Judgment!Prem NaraIn Sharma Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2010
ORDERMohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner aggrieved of his supersession by many of his juniors in the matter of promotion to the post of Inspector of Police. Petitioner though was working on the post of Sub Inspector and was posted at Finger Print Bureau, Jaipur. Petitioner was required to appear in departmental examination/qualifying test for promotion to the post of Inspector in terms of Rules 9 and 10 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for short, 'the Rules of 1989'). According to Para 10 of writ petition, he requested the authorities that he be exempted from appearing in such departmental examination by virtue of Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Departmental Examination) Rules, 1959 (for short, 'the Rules of 1959'). In view of the fact that he has completed 56 years of age and was shortly due to retirement, he cannot be required to appear in such qualifying examination especially when Rule 18 of the Rules of 1959 makes a...
Tag this Judgment!Arjun Lal Meena Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2010
ORDERMohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition was filed by petitioner in the year 1997 with a prayer that respondents be directed to treat him continuous in their service on substantive basis on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) with effect from 21.12.1985 and accordingly assign him seniority on the post of LDC; or, in alternative at-least assign him seniority from 20.06.1987; further prayer has been made that the order dated 25.02.1997 passed by the Government be quashed and set-aside.Shri Arpit Srivastava, learned Counsel for petitioner, has argued that petitioner was selected on the post of LDC by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) and appointed on temporary basis in pay scale of 490-840 under a scheme of 20-point programme by Office of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Division Banswara, vide office order dated 30.03.1983. After joining service with respondent Irrigation Department, petitioner came to know about advertisement published by RPSC for recruitment o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »