Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2006(2)JCR342(Jhr)]
orders.j. mukhopadhaya, j.1. this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the letter no. 753, dated 13th march, 2004 issued by under secretary, water resources department, government of jharkhand and the letter no. 63, dated 18th march, 2004 issued by the superintending engineer, advance planning investigation and hydrology division no. 1, deoghar. by the aforesaid letters it was ordered to retire the petitioner with effect from 18th march, 2004 on the ground that he having completed 40 years of service.2. according to the petitioner, he was appointed in the service of the state on 5th july, 1962 as gauge reader in the work charge establishment. the petitioner proceeded on medical leave as he was suffering from tuberculosis and his service was terminated vide letter no. 641, dated 8th november, 1972. subsequently, he having produced medical certificate and vide letter no. 606, dated 10th april. 1974 of the office of the executive engineer, he was allowed to join duty but again his service was terminated with effect from, 1st november, 1974 vide letter no. 620, dated 28th october, 1974. the petitioner thereafter submitted certificate of medical board and was allowed to re-join on 12th june, 1975. thereafter, his service was taken iri the regular establishment vide memo no. 1446, dated 8th november, 1982 wherein he continued till the issuance of impugned letter no. 753, dated 13th march, 2004.3. the grievance of the petitioner is that though his date of birth .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 125(2005)DLT270; 2006(3)SLJ95(Delhi)
s. ravindra bhat, j.1. in these proceedings under article 226 of the constitution of india, the narrow controversy requiring determination is in respect of the date from which 'in situ' promotion, as per the assured promotion scheme has to be made effective.2. the petitioners are scientists working in the national institute of hydrology ('the institute') a registered society controlled by the union ministry of water resources. clause 29 of the bye-laws of the institute provides that till such time separate regulations concerning its employees are framed, the concerned rules and orders applicable to government employees would govern its officials, subject to modifications effected by the governing body of the institute. all powers are reserved with the governing body of the institute, which is also authorized to resolve any doubts.3. the institute had its own assessment promotion scheme (aps) in 1987. pursuant to a letter of the central ministry of water resources, the institute revised the aps in 1990. the main features of this aps were :(1) applicability to cadres 1 to 4 (ie scientists b,c,e and f) (2) eligibility of cadre 1 to 3 scientists for promotion on completing 5 years service, subject to other conditions;(3)aps from inter alias scientist c to e restricted to 30% of total strength of scientist b,c and e together; (4) promotion to be made effective from the date the scientist completed the qualifying service (called ' the anniversary date) ' rule 12(a).(5) in promotion .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
rapanos v. united states - 04-1034 (2006) syllabus october term, 2005 rapanos v. united states supreme court of the united states rapanos et ux., et al. v . united states certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit no. 04 1034. argued february 21, 2006 decided june 19, 2006 as relevant here, the clean water act (cwa or act) makes it unlawful to discharge dredged or fill material into navigable waters without a permit, 33 u. s. c. 1311(a), 1342(a), and defines navigable waters as the waters of the united states, including the territorial seas, 1362(7). the army corps of engineers (corps), which issues permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters, interprets the waters of the united states expansively to include not only traditional navigable waters, 33 cfr 328.3(a)(1), but also other defined waters, 328.3(a)(2), (3); [t]ributaries of such waters, 328.3(a)(5); and wetlands adjacent to such waters and tributaries, 328.3(a)(7). [a]djacent wetlands include those bordering, contiguous [to], or neighboring waters of the united states even when they are separated from [such] waters by man-made dikes and the like. 328.3(c). these cases involve four michigan wetlands lying near ditches or man-made drains that eventually empty into traditional navigable waters. in no. 04 1034, the united states brought civil enforcement proceedings against the rapanos petitioners, who had backfilled three of the areas without a permit. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Reported in : (2007)8STT449
1. the revenue has filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal no.3/2004-st dated 29-1-2004. the assessee were appointed as consultant to m/s. attappady hills area development society for the execution of their project namely, attappady wasteland comprehensive environmental conservation project in attappady block of palakkad district. it is an eco restoration project implemented with the assistance of overseas economic corporation fund (japan) and extended loan has been provided for execution of this project. for the purpose of carrying out the eco development work in and around 500 kms of wasteland, the assessee had engaged or used the services of project manager, hydrology expert, extension expert, structural engineer, ecological expert, social economist, agronomist and forestry expert. the department proceeded against the assessee for bringing their activity within the net of 'consulting engineering services' and confirmed the demand. the assessee took the stand that they were not carrying out any consulting engineering services but they were undertaking the project for reversing the land degradation and for putting wastelands in and around attappady to use by the systematic management of soil, water and biomass with multilevel participation of the inhabitants of the region, especially tribals. they contended that their activity does not come within the definition of consulting engineering services or as a service provider. based on the allegation of the show cause .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1211; [2007(3)JCR77(SC)]; JT2006(10)SC284; 2006(12)SCALE367; 2007AIRSCW1269
h.k. sema, j1. the challenge in these appeals is to the orders dated 22.8.2003 and 27.2.2004 passed by the division bench of the high court affirming the order dated 30.10.2002 passed by the central administrative tribunal (cat) allowing the petition of the respondents. 2. briefly stated, the facts are as follows:the respondents were working as junior hydro- geologist, junior geophysicist chemists and hydro- meteorologists (scientists grade 'b'). their cases for consideration for promotion to the posts of scientists grade 'c' were declined on the ground that the departmental candidate should have put in at least 5 years as scientists grade 'b' in the scale of rs. 2200-4000 in accordance with rule 7 (2)(b) read with column 12 of central ground water board (scientific group 'a' posts) recruitment rules, 1995 (hereinafter 'the rules'). we will deal with the rules later at an appropriate time. 3. the grievance raised before the tribunal was that the deputationists with 8 years of experience in the scale of rs. 2000-3500 were allowed to be promoted as scientists grade 'c' in the scale of rs. 3000-4500 whereas in the case of the departmental candidates working in the scale of rs. 2200- 4000 it was made mandatory for putting in regular 5 years service in grade 'b' for promotion to grade 'c' and it is, therefore, discriminatory. it was also claimed that although the respondents have not completed 5 years of service in grade 'b' in the scale of rs. 2200-4000, they have already .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2008ACJ1799; (2007)6MLJ960
s. manikumar, j.1. in an accident which occurred on 09.05.1998, the claimant sustained fracture of left leg, which was subsequently amputated. he claimed compensation of rs. 9,00,000/-. the tribunal on evaluation of pleadings and evidence awarded compensation of rs. 1,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim. not satisfied with the quantum, the claimant has filed c.m.a. no. 145 of 2001. the transport corporation, which was found vicariously liable for the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, filed c.m.a. no. 868 of 2001, challenging the finding of the tribunal regarding negligence and quantum. therefore, both the appeals are taken up together and disposed of by a common order. for the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as the 'claimant' and the 'transport corporation'.2. the brief facts of the case are as follows:(i) on 09.05.1998, the claimant boarded the bus owned by the transport corporation at chidambaram to go to sethiathope. when he was getting down from the bus, the driver of the bus suddenly started the bus, without noticing the passenger. the claimant fell down and the front wheel of the bus ran over his left leg, crushing the foot and the ankle. the claimant was immediately taken to raja annamalai hospital, chidambaram for first aid, from where he was taken to jipmer hospital, pondicherry and was admitted on 09.05.1998. he was treated as inpatient. the effort by a team of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad
1. this is an application filed by mr. ashish kumar khare seeking following reliefs: (1) to quash the memorandum issued by respondent-4 and to declare it as null and void in respect of the applicant. (2) call for record relating to job responsibility of hindi translator in fishery survey of india. (3) direct the respondents to extend the benefit of the scale of pay equal to the scale of pay of hindi translator of other organizations of govt. of india, i.e. rs. 550-175-9000 with effect from the date of posting of the applicant in the fishery survey of india, i.e. w.e.f. 4.2.99 along with arrears of pay. (4) declare the applicant equal to the senior hindi translator for pay scale and other benefits. (5) direct the respondents to extend the benefit of substituted scale of pay equal to senior hindi translator as mentioned in annexure a-1 issued by respondent no. 2. the applicant was appointed as hindi translator (central civil services, group-c, non-gazetted, non-ministerial) through central employment exchange and posted as zonal base of fishery survey of india, visakhapatnam with effect from 4.2.99. the applicant is a master degree holder in english. he is drawing the pay scale of rs. 5000-150-8000. the grievance of the applicant is that the scale of pay of junior hindi translator and senior hindi translator were upgraded from 5000-150-8000 to 5500-175-9000 and from rs. 5500-175-9000 to that of rs. 6500-200-10500 respectively in respect of those who are working in central .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1830
prem shanker asopa, j.1. by this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 9.6.2006 (anx.16) passed by the jaipur development authority appellate tribunal (in short the 'tribunal') whereby reference no. 107/2006 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. the petitioner has further challenged the impugned notifications dated 31.1.2006 (anx.14) and 26.6.2006 (anx.17) whereby objections have been invited for proposed conversion of land use in kho-nagorian, tehsil sanganer, distt. jaipur in respect of khasra nos. 596, 597, 598, 599, 600 measuring 3.40 hectares and further in later notification dated 26.6.2006, the total land use of 3.40 hectares of the aforesaid khasra nos. has been changed from 'ecological' to 'residential'.2. in order to deal with the facts in effective manner, the facts referred in the writ petition arid the documents annexed thereto; reply and documents annexed thereto as well as rejoinder have been consolidated and the same are as under:3. in the master development plan of jaipur, 2011 (in short 'the master plan') three zones have been delineated namely 'urbanisable area', 'ecological zone' and 'rural area'. the case of the petitioner is that land of the aforesaid khasra nos. falls within the ecological zone and. the same has been converted to residential area contrary to the interim directions of this court dated 20.5.2004, final directions dated 17.3.2005 and without considering the statutory flavour of the ecological zone attached .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(233)SC2; 2009(2)SCALE271; 2009(2)LC473(SC)
altamas kabir, j.1. the state of orissa has filed this writ petition under article 32 of the constitution of india, wherein the government of india has been made the respondent no. 1 and the state of andhra pradesh has been made the respondent no. 2, inter alia, for the following reliefs:a) direct the government of india to constitute an appropriate tribunal under section 4 of the inter state water disputes act, 1956 and thereafter, refer to it the dispute relating to the construction of side channel weir and flood flow canal project at katragada on the river vansadhara by the state of andhra pradesh;b) issue a writ of mandamus commanding the state of andhra pradesh to forbear from carrying on any works of the proposed project;2. as indicated in the very opening paragraph, the writ petition was filed by the state of orissa for a direction to the central government to constitute a water disputes tribunal under the inter-state water disputes act, 1956 and to refer to the tribunal the dispute contained in the complaint made by the state of orissa on 13th february, 2006, as to whether the state of andhra pradesh was justified in constructing a side channel weir and flood flow canal project on the river vansadhara at katragada, which would adversely affect the supply of water from the river to the state of orissa and adversely affect the livelihood of thousands of people of orissa in glaring violation of article 21 of the constitution of india.3. in order to understand the stand .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(5)KarLJ375; 2009(4)KCCR2313; 2009(4)AIRKarR385(D.B)
orderv.g. sabhahit, j.1. the writ petitions and the contempt of court case are disposed of by this common order since they are interconnected.2. w.p. no. 3568 of 2007 is filed by nandi infrastructure corridor enterprises limited (for short, 'nicel') and two others seeking for quashing of the order dated 4-11-2006 passed by the state-first respondent in the writ petition (annexure-p to the writ petition) and to prohibit the respondents and their servants and agents permanently from acting pursuant to the government order dated 4-11-2006.3. w.p. no. 17550 of 2006 is filed by dr. b.k. chakrapani seeking for quashing of the order dated 4-11-2006 passed by the respondent-state (annexure-a to the writ petition); quashing of the report of the fifth respondent-chief engineer, communication and building (south), bangalore, dated 15-7-2006 (annexure-al to the writ petition) and to direct the respondents not to construct the peripheral road or any other road on or over the gottigere tank on pillars or in a manner which would harm the ecology and environment of the tank and the surrounding areas, and take such measures as may be fit to ensure conservation of the ecology and the environment.4. w.p. no. 12607 of 2007 is filed by electronic city industries association seeking for a writ of mandamus quashing the order dated 4-11-2006 passed by the first respondent-state (annexure-k to the writ petition); to issue direction to the respondents to expedite the construction of peripheral road .....
Tag this Judgment!