Rajasthan Court April 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Ghanshyam Singh Saini
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2010
1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 05.01.2009 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent (CWP No. 3555/2008) and, while quashing the impugned orders dated 01.02.2008 and 06.02.2008 relating to the recovery from the respondent of the amount paid towards retiral benefits, has directed the appellants to determine and pay the pension and all other post retiral benefits to the respondent by treating him a person retiring from the post of Lineman under the Rajasthan Municipalities(Ministerial & Subordinate Staff Service) Rules, 1963 ['the Rules of 1963'].2. Briefly put, the relevant facts and backgrounds aspects of the matters are that by an order dated 25.06.1967 (Annex.1), as issued by the Chairman, Municipal Board, Suratgarh, the respondent (writ-petitioner) was given appointment as Pump Driver on temporary basis in the pay scale Rs. 40-2-60 with admissible allowances including D.A. In the year 1977, the...
Jaipur Development Authority Vs. the Appellate Tribunal, Jda and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Instant petition has been filed by Jaipur Development Authority ('JDA'), assailing the order dt. 12/08/2009 whereby the JDA Appellate Tribunal has directed the JDA to refund the amount of auction bid deposited by respondents-2 to 4. alongwith interest @ 12% on the premise that despite auction purchasers having deposited total bid amount the authority (JDA) was unable to hand over vacant & peaceful possession of the property in question.2. The NIT was issued by petitioner JDA on 27/01/2006 for auction of certain farm houses in which respondents-2 to 4 had also participated and being highest bidder, their bid was accepted and total bid amount indisputably was deposited by them on 08/02/2006, details whereof have been referred to by respondents in para No. 1 of their Reference application filed before the Tribunal.3. After the total bid amount in terms of the NIT was deposited by respondents, it was obviously expected from the authority, in whom the people still have a ...
Hari Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
ORDERGopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are challenging the judgment dated 17th August 2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') praying that 'respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioners in continuity of service with all consequential benefits.'2. As per the averments made in the writ petition, petitioners were appointed in service under respondent No. 2 in Air Force Mess, Uttarlai on different dates to work as Lascar and they were discharging their duties regularly since their appointment and completed 240 days in service and their services were terminated with effect from 1st January 1997 by verbal order. The petitioners challenged the verbal termination order before the Tribunal by filing Original Application in which it was mentioned that as per Model Standing Orders applicable upon various units of diff...
Rajendra Kumar Vs. Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
ORDERDalip Singh, J.1. This writ petition has been preferred by the plaintiff whose application for production of documents has been refused by the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 04.08.2005. The application submitted by the petitioner-plaintiff is Annexure-1 on record and the impugned order is Annexure-2 on record.2. After notices were issued, the respondents have put in appearance.3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of this case.4. As per the application, the plaintiff has sought to produce the following documents:1. The original pronote;2. The receipt;3. Copy of the passbook of account No. 1431 of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Branch Maathhan;4. Telephone bills of STD PCO;5. Ordersheets from 25.04.2003 to 27.06.2005 in a Revenue Suit [Rajendra v. Basant Lal] pending before the court of Assistant Collector, Bahrod;6. Ordersheets in the suit No. 153/2001 [Prushottam v. Santosh Devi] from 06.08.2002 to 19.10.2004; and7. Copy of t...
Bhura Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
1. By the judgment dated 19.7.2003 learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur held the accused appellant guilty for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, therefore, recorded the conviction and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life term with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and further to undergo one year more rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine.2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the intervening night of 17.3.2002 and 18.3.2002 accused Bhura came to the residence of deceased Vesa, where his wife Smt. Kamla was sleeping. Accused Bhura asked the lady about her husband and on knowing about the fact that he was at his agriculture field, the accused proceeded accordingly. Smt. Kamla also went behind the accused and found him giving several blows by knife and an Axe to deceased Vesa. Smt. Kamla then raised alarm consequent to which Pema S/o Moti, Amba S/o Dhanna, Kela S/o Khata and Gulla S/o Amra etc. came to the spot, however, in the meanwhile th...
Ayub Ahmed Vs. Divisional Commissioner and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
ORDERMohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for parties.2. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging order dated 08.06.1994 of his removal and order dated 11.09.1996 rejecting his appeal filed there-against.3. Petitioner was initially appointed as Patwari by order dated 02.03.1968 and was later on confirmed on that post by order dated 20.05.1975. Petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 17.12.1987 pursuant to order of Board of Revenue dated 07.12.1987. A charge-sheet was issued to him on 14.08.1988. He submitted reply thereto. Along-with reply, the petitioner produced ten documents and a list of witnesses to be examined on his behalf in disciplinary enquiry. He submitted a representation to District Collector, Baran, on 20.07.1991 requesting for his reinstatement pending conclusion of disciplinary enquiry. The order of suspension was revoked on 01.11.1991 and petitioner was reinstated back in service. The petitioner submitted a representation to the D...
K.K. Sharma (Since Deceased) Through His Legal Representatives Smt. Sa ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
ORDERMohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition was filed by petitioner way back in the year 1996 with prayer that charge-sheet issued to him on last date of his retirement i.e. 31.03.1990, may be quashed and set aside and departmental enquiry may be dropped; respondents be further directed to make in time payment of pension and gratuity with commutation along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.2. Shri Shankar Lal Sharma, brief holder of Shri Suresh Pareek, learned Counsel for petitioners, argued that original writ petitioner expired on 11.10.2007 during pendency of writ petition and now it is being prosecuted by his legal heirs, who have been taken on record by order of the Court dated 10.07.2008. It is contended that even though charge-sheet was issued to original writ petitioner way back on 31.03.1990 but respondents could not complete disciplinary proceedings in that charge-sheet for a decade and finally the enquiry proceedings were dropped on 10.03.2000. On account thereof, t...
Madanlal Garg and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-2010
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Counsel submits that controversy raised herein has been decided by DB decision of this Court at principal seat Jodhpur in Special Appeal (Writ) 208/06 & bunch of others (State of Rajasthan v. Ramniwas Porwal) on 13/12/07 (Per Hon. Mr. Rajesh Balia, J.) 2008 (2) WLC 406) clarifying the position ad infra: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 promoted as Senior Teacher but after 1.7.1989 who has not completed 10 years as Senior Teacher at the time of commencement of the Act his pay in pay-scale of 6500-10500 was protected as personal to him, though he would become eligible to such scale under the new rules of 1998 only on completion of 10 years. In this view of the matter, the rights of the respondents even under the aforesaid provision remain intact and unaffected and it could not have any adverse effect on th...
Rama Kant Sharma and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-2010
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Counsel submits that controversy raised herein has been decided by DB decision of this Court at principal seat Jodhpur in Special Appeal (Writ) 208/06 & bunch of others (State of Rajasthan v. Ramniwas Porwal) on 13/12/07 (Per Hon. Mr. Rajesh Balia, J.) 2008 (2) WLC 406 clarifying the position ad infra: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 promoted as Senior Teacher but after 1.7.1989 who has not completed 10 years as Senior Teacher at the time of commencement of the Act his pay in pay-scale of 6500-10500 was protected as personal to him, though he would become eligible to such scale under the new rules of 1998 only on completion of 10 years. In this view of the matter, the rights of the respondents even under the aforesaid provision remain intact and unaffected and it could not have any adverse effect on the...
Pratap Singh Vs. Board of Revenue
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-2010
1. To assail the judgment dated 1.4.2009 passed by learned Single Judge this special appeal is preferred. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 28.1.1977, a land was allotted to respondent Jetha Ram as per the provisions of Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana Colony Area) Rules, 1975. The allotment aforesaid was subsequently cancelled and that was challenged by respondent Jetha Ram by way of filing a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue accepted the same and remanded the matter for reconsideration to Collector, Bikaner. The Collector, Bikaner by Annexure-2 dated 21.4.1994 re-allotted the land to the respondent aforesaid. A challenge to the same was given by the present petitioner after a lapse of about 13 years. The Board of Revenue by its judgment dated 9.2.2002 dismissed the revision petition preferred by the petitioner with specific assertion that in a suit preferred by the present pet...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »