Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : (2009)ILLJ105HP,2008(2)ShimLC240
R.B. Misra, J.1. Heard Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Counsel for Himachal Road Transport Corporation (in short 'HRTC Corporation').2. In the present writ petition, the order dated 28.2.2002 passed by the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Shimla (in short 'learned Tribunal') in OA No. 119/95 has been challenged, whereby, the O.A. preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 25.2.1993 removing him from the service of Corporation and further prayer directing to re-engage him with consequential benefits, has been denied.3. It appears that the petitioner was initially deployed as daily wager by the respondent corporation in the year 1980. Thereafter his services were regularized in the year 1982. The departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner wherein he was served with two charge-sheets dated 20.11.1991 and 21.3.1992. The charges indicated therein were as follows:(i) Alleged attempt to defraud the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(2)ShimLC350
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 29-S/13 of 1996 dated 9.6.1997.2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the Second Appeal are that the appellants/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiffs' for convenience sake) had filed a suit in the Court of learned Senior Sub-Judge, Solan on 24.2.1990 for declaration and permanent injunction on the ground that they had been coming in possession as owners of the suit land since the time of their ancestors and revenue entries to the contrary showing the land as Shamlat Deh was wrong, illegal and not affect their right, title or interest and subsequent mutation qua the suit land measuring 125 Bighas 19 Biswas situated in village Chhrol, Tehsil Kandaghat, now Tehsil Kasauli, in favour of Nagar Panchayat and in possession of Makbuja Bashindgaan Deh is wrong, illegal and without jurisdiction. They also as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Oral: Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. By means of the present writ petition, following reliefs have been claimed: i) That impugned communication dated 20.10.2011 may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That contract of the petitioner may kindly be renewed as the post is still lying vacant as other similar situated persons have been allowed to continue. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. iii) That the respondents may be directed that after re-engaging the petitioner, he may be given all consequential benefits. 2. The factual position as emerges from the perusal of the record is that the petitioner was appointed as driver on contract basis in the year 2003 in the office of 3rd respondent initially for a period of one year renewed subsequently on year to year basis. He was deputed with the vehicle attached to the office of Chief Medical Officer, Haroli, District Una. On 16/17.10.2006, a criminal case under Section 307 and 308, IPC read with Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1970CriLJ1303
ORDEROm Parkash, J.1. This order will dispose of criminal revision petitions Nos. 60, 61 and 62 of 1969.2. The police had put up three separate challans, under Section 7, read with Section 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, against the respondent. The case for the prosecution was that Shri Kabul Singh, Inspector of Civil Supplies Department. Dharamsala, had, on the 19th October, 1967, raided the premises of Kishan Chand and Tej Ram situated in village Mitli and the premises of Kalu Bam in village Shekhpur and had recovered 75 bags of rice and 25 bags of gram from the premises of Kishan Chand; 75 bags of rice, 25 bags of gram and 28 bags of wheat from the premises . of Tej Bam and 50 bags of rice, 60 bags of gram and 15 bags of white gram from the premises of Kalu Ram. According to the prosecution, the aforesaid foodgrains had been stored by the respondent without a licence, as required by the Punjab Foodgrains Dealers' Licencing Order, 1964 and the Pun jab Rice Dealers' Licencin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1991HP1
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, C.J. 1. This appeal by the defendant is against the decree of a teamed single Judge of this court in Civil Suit No. 10/71 declaring that the judgment dt. 4-5-1968 in Civil Suit No. 21 /1 of 1965 (Durga Singh v. Union of India) passed by the Senior Sub-Judge, Mahasu District and the mutation of 'Patta' obtained by the defendant in pursuance to the said judgment are illegal and void and also granting consequential reliefs in the suit.2. The defendant is the owner in possession of the land in Khasra Nos. 23 and 27 of village Lindi Dhar Tehsil Kasumpti. The adjoining land in Khasra No. 22 belongs' to the Forest Department of Government of Himachal Pradesh. The defendant had encroached upon the land in Khasra No. 22 and had planted an extent of 17 bighas 7 biawas of land in 1958. The Naib Tehsildar on demarcation of boundaries found the aforesaid extent of 17 bighas 7 biswas belonged to the Government and formed part of Khasra No. 22. The Government thereafter took p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1346
ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the decision of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, in a case under Sections 323 and 325 of the I. P. C. whereby in appeal the conviction of Param Dev for causing voluntary hurt to Smt. Chhetri and her small child Sarla is maintained, although the sentence has been reduced. The prosecution case was, that on 16-5-1969 the accused Param Dev gave a beating to Smt. Chhetri and in this process snatched the child Sarla from her with the result that the child fell down and sustained a fracture in the head. There was also an exchange of abuses between them prior to the causing of voluntary hurt. Param Dev was accordingly prosecuted for the offence under Section 325 for causing grievous hurt to Sarla and for the offence under Section 323 for causing simple injuries to Smt. Chhetri. The learned Magistrate sentenced him for nine months rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence under Section 325 and sen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1972CriLJ687
M.H. Beg, C.J.1. The appellant, Gomtu, was charged under Sections 302, 201 and 436 I. P. C. The charge contained three heads. The first head is a charge for committing the murder of a man called Gover Singh, 'together with Bali and Dharam. Khubu, and Karmu during the night 31st December. 1968 and 1st January. 1969' although no reference to either Section 34 I. P. C. or a 'common intention' is made in the charge. The remaining two heads of charges, one under Section 201 and the other under Section 436 I. P. C., are also framed without invoking the aid of Section 34 I. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge of Mandi acquitted Bali as well as the three sons of the appellant namely, Dharmu Khubu and Karmu because the evidence against them was found by him to be doubtful, but, convicted Gomtu appellant of an offence punishable under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 700/-, and, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a furthe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1987CriLJ1644
T.R. Handa, J.1. The appellant, Nirmal Singh, was tried for the offence falling under Section 302, I.P.C. for having committed the murder of his wife, Kulwant Kaur. He was found guilty and convicted of the said offence by the trial Court. For this conviction he was awarded sentence of life imprisonment. He filed an appeal in this Court, being Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1984 against his conviction and sentence. Vide our short order dated 5th September, 1986, we allowed that appeal and ordered acquittal of the appellant. We now proceed to supply our reasons in support of the said order.2. The facts of this case show that the appellant is a young man of about 21 years. He belongs to village Maina Majari falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Bassi, in District Patiala (Punjab). He was married to Smt. Kulwant Kaur deceased on 28-1-1983. The parents of the deceased reside in village Bhadsali in District Una which is at a distance of about 80 to 90 miles from the village of the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). The appellant challenges his conviction under Sections 452 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 452 I.P.C. and fine of Rs.5,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and fine of Rs.20,000/- for offence under Section 376 I.P.C . 2. The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix PW1, who is minor and student of 8th Class studying in Senior Secondary School, Ghumarwin, had been raped by the accused. 3. The case of the prosecution is that F.I.R. No. 133 of 2011 (Ext.PW9/B) was lodged in Police Station, Ghumarwin on the statement Ext.PW1/A of the prosecutrix under Section 154 Cr. P.C. The narration of the incident is thus: 4. The complainant was a student of 8th Class who had lost her father and mother was Pagal (mentally unstable). Her elder brother was died. She has two brothers Praveen Kumar and Mahinder Pal, who were working as carpenter and welder respe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : (2008)IIILLJ795HP,2008(2)ShimLC324
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the members of the petitioners' union were engaged by respondent No. 3 since 1983-84 onwards. Respondent No. 3 had moved an application to respondent No. 1 seeking permission of closure of the factory under Sub-section (1) of Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity sake) on 4.4.2003. It was specifically mentioned in the application dated 4.4.2003 that number of employees whose services were to be terminated on account of the closure of the unit was 149. The application was rejected on 9.5.2003 whereby the permission was not accorded for the proposed closure of the unit. Respondent No. 3 i.e. management approached the State Government on 15.12.2003 under Section 29(N) of the Act seeking permission for retrenchment of 50 workmen out of 141 workmen with effect from 15.3.2004. The application was decided on 12.12.2004 whereby the State Govern...
Tag this Judgment!