Rajasthan Court February 2010 Judgments

Ved Prakash Sharma Vs. Chairman, Rajasthan Electronics Limited and anr ...

Court: Rajasthan

ORDERMohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for parties.2. Petitioner Ved Prakash has filed this writ petition challenging the Award dated 08.02.1996 of Labour Court, Jaipur.3. A reference was made by the appropriate Government to Labour Court on question whether removal of Shri Ved Prakash by respondent from its services on 05.04.1987 was valid and, if not, for what relief he was entitled to? The Labour Court held such removal as invalid; however, since the Company/Factory in which petitioner was engaged, was closed down, instead directing his reinstatement, it required respondent to pay to petitioner back wages at the rate of Rs. 240/- per month and compensation at the rate of Rs. 120/- per year from the date of retrenchment till passing of Award.4. Shri Alok Garg, learned Counsel for petitioner, submitted that once termination of petitioner was held to be illegal, the respondent ought to have been required to accommodate petitioner in any other State Enterprises. Learned Counsel...

Central Academy Educational Society Vs. the Pratap Commercial Co. Pvt. ...

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: RLW2010(2)Raj1327

Sangeet Lodha, J.1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 23.4.09 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in case No. 2/09, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner for framing the issues, has been rejected.2. The respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (in short 'the Act' hereinafter) for evicting the petitioner from the premises in question on the grounds of reasonable and bona fide necessity, non user of the premises without reasonable cause for the purpose for which it was let out for a continuous period of six months preceding the date of petition, the petitioner acquiring vacant possession of suitable premises adequate for his requirement and the requirement of the respondent of the premises in order to carry out the building work. The petition is being contested by the petitioner herein by filing reply thereto. It is stated that the respondent in the rejoinder to the reply, the respondent came out with the entirely a new ca...

Mohanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj818

Govind Mathur, J.1. By the judgment dated 7.3.2003 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangariya convicted the appellant accused for commission of an offence under Section 302 IPC and for that sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life term with a fine of Rs. l000/- and in default to payment of fine the accused was required to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.2. The factual matrix, necessary to be noticed is that on 24.3.2002 Shri Ramdev Singh, the then Station House, Officer of Police Station Sangariya, recorded statements of PW-9 Smt. Saroj at the place of incidence and on that basis lodged an FIR to investigate alleged offences under Sections 302 and 450 IPC. PW-9 Smt. Saroj in the statement aforesaid (Ex.P/7) stated that she married with deceased Sohanlal about 8-9 years earlier and since then she was residing with him in a house at Ward No. 8. About a period of three months earlier to the date of incident, she came to reside in Ward No. 8 at the instance of her ...

Ram Prasad Vs. Prem @ Premraj and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Aggrieved by the order dated 15-6-2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, whereby the learned Judge has quashed and set aside the cognizance order dated 12-92007, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Bamanwas in Criminal Case No. 135/2007, the petitioner has approached this Court.2. According to the petitioner, he is a registered owner of a Tractor No. RJ-25/RA-0768, bearing Chasis No. 91914141370, and Engine No. 73781. According to him, the respondent No. 1 Prem @ Premraj forcibly took away the tractor and refused to return the said tractor to the petitioner. The petitioner lodged FIR, FIR No. 268/2006, with the Police Station Bamanwas for the offences under Sections 379 and 341 IPC. However, after a thorough investigation, the police submitted a negative final report before the Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner challenged the final report, by filing protest petition. Learned Magistrate recorded the statements of the petitioner unde...

Smt. Vijay Laxmi Agnihorti Vs. State and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Through instant petition, petitioner has prayed for that being a Senior Most Asstt. Commissioner (Devasthan) may be considered for promotion to the post of Dy. Commissioner (Devasthan) which is highest post included in Rajasthan Devasthan State & Subordinate Service Rules, 2000 ('Rules, 2000').2. Petitioner was initially appointed as Inspector Gr.II on 15/09/1980 and further appointed as Inspector Gr.I on 09/12/1989, and was promoted as Inspector Gr.I against vacancy year of 1990-91 on the recommendations of the Review DPC vide order dt.10/08/2004 (Ann.R/4) and further promoted as Asstt. Commissioner (Devasthan) against vacancy of the year 199596 vide order dt.25/08/2006 (Ann.R/7); and as per seniority list of Assistant Commissioners (Devasthan), she is the senior most officer in the department. Indisputably, there is only one sanctioned post of Dy. Commissioner (Devasthan) in the Department which is appended under Rules, 2000.3. Counsel submits that post of Dy. Comm...

Bhanwar Lal Khati, Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

ORDERMohammad Rafiq, J.1. These three writ petitions were filed by petitioners, namely, Bhanwar Lal Khati, Prem Kumar Nagar and Rajendra Prasad Sharma, who have been serving as Constable in the respondent Department since 1962, 1977 and 1979, respectively, with prayer that respondents be directed to provide them benefit of pay scale of post of Electronic Data Processor from the date of their initial appointment with all consequential benefits; in alternative, prayer is made to provide them benefit of pay scale of Electronic Data Processor, which is applicable in National Crime Record Bureau as well as in other States, from the date of their initial appointment. Further prayer has been made that the respondents be directed to provide them benefit of promotion, which is being provided in other wings of Police, like - Finger Print Bureau and CID-CB, with retrospective effect as the petitioners were not called for qualifying examination.2. Contention of Shri Tej Prakash Sharma, learned Cou...

Suresh Durgan Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited Throug ...

Court: Rajasthan

ORDERMohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition even though was listed for orders on second stay petition but, with the consent of both the parties, was finally heard and is being decided by this judgment.2. Petitioner has approached this Court with grievance that he has been overlooked for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer from 28.10.1999, the date when his juniors were promoted, and prayed that he be promoted with effect from that date with all consequential benefits.3. Ms. Shalini Sheron, learned Counsel for petitioner, contended that source of recruitment for appointment on the post of Executive Engineer as per the R.S.E.B. Service of Engineers (Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority etc.) Regulations, 1969, is hundred percent by promotion on the basis of seniority- cum-merit, suitability/seniority-cum-merit, which is further bifurcated to be made 67% by seniority-cum-merit and 33% by merit alone. Petitioner is a degree holder Assistant Engineer having service experience of fi...

Smt. Kishani Devi and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.02.2009 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer ('the Board', for short) wherein the learned Board has remanded the case back to the Sub Divisional Officer, Siker ('the SDO', for short) and has directed him to hold a denovo trial, the petitioners has challenged the same before this Court.2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 01.03.2006, the petitioners filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and for correction of revenue record before the SDO, Sikar praying that they be declared as recorded tenant of half portion of the suit land and the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 be restrained from interfering their peaceful possession. It was also averred in the suit that the suit land is an ancestral land and was in the name of Shri Ganpat Ram, the husband of the petitioner No. 1. But due to collusion of some revenue officers, the respondents succeeded in removing his name from the revenue record. The respondent Nos. 4 & 5 filed their ...

Ramjan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

G.S. Sarraf, J.1. The accused appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 31.3.2005 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Ajmer, Camp Beawar in sessions case No. 20/04 (11/04 old number) whereby they have been convicted under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and they have been sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-under Section 498A IPC and under Section 304B IPC the accused appellant Kishan has been sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment whereas the other two accused appellants Ramjan and Rasul have been sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment.2. The case arises out of a report Ex.P.1 lodged at about 7.15 p.m. on 27.10.2003 at the police station Masooda, district Ajmer by Mishri PW.3 wherein it was alleged that 'Muklava' of Anita was performed with her husband Kishan (the accused appellant) and thereafter the husband told his wife that her colour was black and her parents did not give anything and, th...

Yogeshwar Sharma and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

ORDERMohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for parties.2. This writ petition was filed by petitioners in the year 1997 aggrieved by order dated 04.06.1996 (Annexure-7) thereby the respondents promoted Shri Satpal Singh, Helper, on the post of Driver and conferred upon him semi-permanent status of that post.3. Learned Counsel for petitioner has argued that petitioner No. 1 who was initially appointed Helper vide order dated 01.04.1982 and petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Helper on 01.02.1982 whereas Satpal was appointed on the same post in September, 1983. Petitioners as well as Satpal were also ever since required to discharge duties of Driver. However, wage of the post of Driver, on daily wages basis, was sanctioned to Satpal with effect from 19.07.1991 and no such benefit was extended to petitioners. He was even made semi-permanent status on that post with effect from 18.07.1993 and fixed in regular pay scale of post of Driver i.e. 950-1680. The petitioners have not been grante...