Rajasthan Court April 2010 Judgments

Divisional Mechanical Engineer, R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Bahadur Singh and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this appeal filed by the appellant Divisional Mechanical Engineer, R.S.R.T.C., Bikaner, the appellant is challenging the order dated 07.10.1998 passed by the Commissioner, Workman Compensation, Hanumangarh in claim application No. WC 2/96, whereby, compensation to the tune of Rs. 19,152/- including interest has been awarded in favour of the respondent-claimant.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent workman filed application for claiming compensation on the ground that on 22.11.1983 when he was discharging duties as driver at Hanumangarh Depot he suffered injury in the left leg and dislocation of the hip bone. The said injury was sustained by him while pushing the bus. After above incident, the claimant-respondent remained under medical treatment and after recovery he joined the duties, but, he was not in a position to discharge duties as driver, therefore, he was assigned light duties.3. For the above deficiency suffered while performing duties, ...

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bhanwariya and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against order dated 12.04.1996 passed in O.A. Case No1-340/94 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (Camp Jodhpur), whereby, the Tribunal partly decreed the claim of the appellant.2. As per facts of the case, the appellant booked one bale of cloth valuing Rs. 7650/- Ex. Jodhpur to Palanpur vide parcel way bill No. 371291 dated 03.09.1991. The value of the cloth was declared in P.V. Bill and in the forwarding note. The above consignment was however not delivered to the consignee due to negligence of the Railways. The consignee returned the bill and original P.V. Bill to the appellant.3. Thereafter, the appellant served notice under Section 78B of the Indian Railways Act under registered A/D cover on 11.11.1991 which was received by the respondents on 13.11.1991. The Railway administration sent a cheque on 17.07.1992 for Rs. 1700/-. The said amount was not accepted by the appel...

Khere Khan @ Kherdeen and Sheria Vs. State of Raj. and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. By the impugned order dated 04.06.2008, the Board of Revenue, Ajmer has dismissed the petitioners' revision under Section 23(2) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'relevant rules').3. The Board of Revenue has held that the allotment of land in question to the petitioner was cancelled on account of the report of the District Magistrate that the petitioner is involved in antinational activities and as many as four cases were lodged/instituted against him under the Provisions of Passport Act, Arms Act and also NDPS Act.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. LD Khatri contended that:(I) The petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before cancellation of allotment under Rule 16(6) of the relevant Rules and (ii) that in four criminal cases referred by the competent authority in the order dated 08.10.199...

Magan Singh Vs. the General Manager, Uco Bank and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 08.02.2010 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has declined to entertain the writ petition (CWP No. 1102/2010) filed by the petitioner-appellant seeking directions against the respondent-Bank for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The learned Single Judge found the petitioner-appellant disentitled to any relief for compassionate appointment after about 15 years of the demise of the employee (father of the appellant).2. Put in brief, the relevant facts and background aspects of the matter are that appellant's father Shri Man Mohan Singh expired on 13.11.1995 while serving as Daftari with the respondent-Bank at its K.E.M. Road Branch, Bikaner. According to the petitioner-appellant, his mother had expired way back on 12.10.1993 and, at the time of death of the father, he was a minor, being born on 19.07.1988; and hence, his grand father submitted a representation to the respondent- B...

Municipal Council Vs. Nandlal

Court: Rajasthan

1. Though the matter has been placed for orders on the application (IA No. 4706/2009) moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay, however, having regard to the circumstances of the case, while ignoring the delay, we have considered the appeal on merits.2. This intra-court appeal has been preferred against the order dated 12.09.2008 as passed in CWP No. 320/1996 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has directed the appellant to consider the case of the respondent (writ- petitioner) for regularisation on the post of Pump Driver with effect from 01 .08.1988; and if he be found suitable and there be no reason not to regularise with effect from the said date, to pass appropriate order and to give consequential benefits.3. The writ petition aforesaid was filed essentially with the submissions that though the writ petitioner was appointed as Beldar in the year 1980, he was assigned from time to time the work of Pump Driver along with one Ismile Khan; an...

Heera Lal and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: RLW2010(2)Raj1686

Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Instant petition has been filed against order dt.04/01/2010 (Ann.5) passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer whereby while accepting appeal preferred by respondent-Municipality Kotputli (Jaipur), matter has been remitted back to the Additional Collector for examining the issues afresh in accordance with law.2. Counsel submits that once suit for declaration & permanent injunction filed by predecessor in title of petitioners has been decreed in their favour vide judgment dt. 29/12/1962, proceedings initiated against him on submission of application by Tehsildar (Land Records) Under Section 14(4) of Rajasthan Land Revenue (allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 ('Allotment Rules, 1970'), which was accepted by Additional Collector, Kotputli vide order dt.31/12/2003, are wholly without jurisdiction; as such the Board of Revenue has committed a patent illegality in remanding the matter back to the original authority having no jurisdiction.3. Counsel further subm...

Naresh Kumar Vs. State and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: RLW2010(2)Raj1656

Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Instant petition has been filed by defendant (tenant) assailing order dt. 23/02/2010 (Ann.6) passed by Rent Tribunal, Kota whereby objection was rejected on the premise that rejoinder alongwith affidavit having been filed by plaintiff is necessary for proper adjudication of dispute being raised.2. From material on record, respondent plaintiff filed application seeking eviction of suit premises for his personal bonafide necessity before the Rent Tribunal; and after written statement being filed by petitioner, respondent further filed rejoinder alongwith affidavit enclosed therewith, at this stage, petitioner raised objection that by filing affidavit annexed to the rejoinder if taken on record, respondent by this indirect method wants to improve his case, which may cause prejudice to him.3. Taking note of objection raised by petitioner, the learned Tribunal observed that what has been contended by respondent-plaintiff in his rejoinder alongwith affidavit is certainly r...

Rajendra Kumar Vasudev Vs. the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and or ...

Court: Rajasthan

1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 26.03.2010 passed in CWP No. 11460/2009 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking directions against the respondents to accept its technical bid and to award contract for providing catering and other allied services at three staff training centres of the respondent-Bank, if financial bid be found to be the lowest one.2. The relevant facts and background aspects of the matter are that the respondent-Bank issued a notice inviting tenders (NIT) on 05.11.2009 for awarding the contract abovementioned. The appellant firm submitted its tenders in relation to all the three centres but was declared ineligible after opening the technical bids; and thereafter, the financial bids were opened wherein another tenderer M/s Narayan Traders was found to have been offered the lowest rates and, accordingly, the tenders submitted by the said firm were accepted.3. Questioning t...

Smt. Pawan Kumari JaIn Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Petitioner, as alleged in writ petition petition, was initially appointed as Teacher Grade-III. On completion of requisite period of service, she was granted benefit of selection scale of Rs. 6500-10500. However, later on, vide notification dated 08.06.2001 which was given retrospective effect from 01.07.1998, her pay scale was reduced and recovery of excess amount has also been ordered to be made.2. Shri Hanuman Choudhary, learned Counsel for petitioner, submits that controversy raised in instant petition has been decided by judgment of Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 208/06 along with 41 other connected appeals, State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Raniwas Porwal, {2008 (2) WLC 406}, on 13.12.2007. Relevant part of judgment supra reads as under:However, it may be clarified that because of the provisions made in Note 8 read with Note appended to Rule 6 a Senior Teacher drawing pay in second selection grade of 6500-10500 prior to 1.7.1998 and promo...

Basti Ram and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

1. The matter has been listed in default category for requisite process fees and notices having not been filed but having regard to the circumstances that similar matters have already been decided by this Court, while ignoring the default, we have considered the matter on merit.2. The appellants-petitioners were engaged as 'Vidhyarthi Mitra' to undertake teaching work in schools on contract basis under the scheme framed by the State Government; they approached this Court by filing the respective writ petitions stating the grievance, inter alia, that their services would not be continued after summer break. It appears that the engagement of some of incumbents continued during the pendency of the litigation pursuant to the orders passed by the Court. Thereafter, a batch of petitions involving similar issues was decided at Jaipur Bench of this Court on 08.05.2009 with certain directions essentially to the effect that the respondents shall consider the cases of petitioners for continuation...