Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2007(3)JCR530(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioners had claimed their regularisation on the ground that they worked for a long period under respondents No. 6 and 7 but were disengaged. Pursuant to the order passed on 5th August, 2002 in this writ petition, the authorities considered the matter and rejected the petitioners' claim by order dated 4.2.2003 (Annexure 21) which has been challenged by the petitioners by way of an amendment petition (I.A. No. 510 of 2003).2. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were Home Guards and in view of the letter dated 9.1.1997 issued by the District Commandant (Annexure 7), petitioners should be regularised. He relied on the order dated 6.3.2002 passed by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. Nos. 2168 with 2223 of 2001 in the case of Birendra Kumar Pandey etc. He also submitted that the petitioners were public servants.3. Learned Counsel for the State relied on the Constitution Bench judgment of Secretary, State of Karnataka...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI Cr.M.P.No.2323of2015 1.AbhishekKumar,S/oDr.K.M.Prasad 2.RashmiKumari,D/oDr.K.M.Prasad 3.MukeshKumar,S/oDr.K.M.Prasad,AllR/oAshokNagar,PO AshokNagar,PSArgora,Ranchi............ Petitioners Versus 1.TheStateofJharkhandthroughDirectorateofEnforcement, 2.TheEnforcementOfficer,EnforcementDirectorate,KolkataZonal Office,Kolkata............... Opp.Parties ....... Coram:TheHon'bleMr.JusticeR.R.Prasad ....... ForthePetitioners :Mr.AnilKumar,Sr.Advocate FortheE.D. :Mr.A.K.Das,Advocate ........ ORDER C.A.V.On22/01/2016 Deliveredon04/02/2016 06/04.02.2016 This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 31/05/2002,passedinComplaintCaseNo.C.III85of2002,bythethen SpecialJudge,CBI,Ranchi,wherebyandwhereunderthecognizanceofthe offencespunishableunderSection56readwithSection49(3)and(4)ofthe Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, has been taken against the petitionersforcontraventionoftheprovisionascontainedinSection9(1)(i)(a) and9(b)(i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2004(52)BLJR149; [2004(1)JCR285(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the Judgment dated 14.07.2003 by the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in WP (S) No. 711 of 2003, whereby the prayer of the petitioner-appellant for quashing the order dated 06.01.2003 (Annexure 28/A to the writ petition which is Annexure 10 in this appeal) passed by respondent No. 5 Registrar, Co-operative societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi by virtue of which he was compulsorily retired by way of punishment in a disciplinary proceeding has been refused and the said writ petition was dismissed.2. The learned Single Judge in para 5 of the impugned Judgment while dismissing the writ petition has observed thus :'From perusal of the affidavits it transpire that the departmental proceeding was conducted and the inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer. Taking into consideration that the charges against the petitioner were prima facie proved, the impugned order of compulsory retireme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2003(2)JCR712(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. Allam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Junior Counsel to the Additional Advocate General for the State of Jharkhand.2. By order dated 20.12.2001, the Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna was ordered to be impleaded as respondent No. 4 and that is how Mr. A. Allam who had accepted notice on behalf of the State of Bihar is representing the case of the said respondent.3. The grievance of the writ petitioner in the instant case is for quashing the order dated 16.3.2000 (as contained at Annexure-10) passed by the respondent No. 4 whereby and whereunder 20% of the pension payable to the petitioner was ordered to be deducted as a measure of punishment. By reason of the said order, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected.4. The shorts facts which are necessary to be taken note of for purposes of adjudi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2613 of 2013 --- Nand Kishore Rai --- --- ---- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand 3. The Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand --- --- Respondents --- CORAM: The Honble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner: Mr. Saurav Arun & Mr. Deepak Kr. Dubey, Advocate For the Resp-State: Mrs. Shweta Singh, JC to GP-V --- 09/ 23.07.2015 Heard counsel for the parties.2. By the impugned order bearing Memo No. 2219(S) dated 14.03.2013 (Annexure-6) issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, a new Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer have been appointed to inquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner in Departmental Proceeding vide Office Order No. 204 read with Memo No. 5863(S)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4994 of 2011 Dr. Amreshwar Prasad, son of Late Brij Narayan Lal, resident of C/3, Bhabnesh Apartment, Road No.3, Birsa Nagar, P.O.-Hatia, P.S-Jagannathpur, Dist- Ranchi, Jharkhand .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Principal Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi.3. Joint Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi.4. Special Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, Ranchi.5. Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Office at Circular Road, P.O. and P.S. Lalpur, Ranchi 6. Secretary, Cabinet, Jharkhand, office at Project Building, H.E.C. Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi . Respondents --------- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK ------...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.5812 of 2010 ------- Sudhir Kumar Mishra, son of Sri Dayanand Mishra, residing at Rajkiyakrit High School Campus, Chandwa, P.O. and P.S.- Chandwa, District-Latehar Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having office at Project Building, P.O. and P.S.- Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi.2. The Director, Secondary Education, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having office at Project Building, P.O. and P.S.- Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi.3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Palamau Region, having office at Medininagar, P.O. and P.S.-Medininagar, District-Palamau.4. The District Education Officer, Latehar, P.O. and P.S.- Latehar, District-Latehar. ... Respondents ------ CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2009CriLJ3088
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. The order dated 18.03.2005, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge - cum - Special Judge, Koderma is under challenge in this revision application whereby the learned Additional, Special Judge rejected the petition for discharge filed by the petitioner.2. The relevant facts in short giving rise to this application are that the opposite party No. 2 i.e. the informant lodged a written report on 22.06.2002 to the Superintendent of Police, Koderma alleging therein that while he was posted and working as District Superintendent of Education at Koderma, the petitioner Aparajita Jha was posted there as District Education Officer. The informant alleged that the petitioner was only the inspecting/supervising authority whereas the rest of the official work was to be performed by him on the instructions and directions of the Deputy Commissioner. Smt. Jha was also member of the District Education Establishment Committee, Koderma under the Chairmanship of the Dep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2003(2)JCR264(Jhr)]; (2003)IILLJ1058Jhar
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 9.7.2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 1885 of 2001, by reason whereof the writ application preferred by the respondents was allowed and the award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court was set aside.2. The essential facts which need to be taken note of is that on 13.1.1996 the concerned workman, namely, Anil Kumar Jha was transferred from Jamshedpur to Bombay. At the relevant time he was working in the Purchase Department and by reason of the order of transfer he was directed to report for duty at Bombay by 24.1.1986. It was also intimated in the order of transfer that he would be relieved from his duties at Jamshedpur from the close of the working hours of 16th January, 1996. A dispute was then raised by the Union and on 17.9.1996 the same led to a reference being made by the Government of Bihar to the Labour Court, Jamshedpur to adjudicate as to 'Whether the transfer of Shri An...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2003(2)BLJR1245
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Petitioner workmen of Hindustan Malleables and Forging Ltd. Dhanbad have challenged the order dated 5-9-1991 and the award dated 24-8-1992 passed by Presiding Officer. Labour Court, Bokaro Steel Bokaro in Reference Case No. 12 of 1983, whereby it has been held that the action of the Management in dismissing the workmen namely, Shri Safal Mian and others is justified and they are not entitled to any relief.2. It appears that the Government of Bihar by Notification dated 26-4-1983 referred the following dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication :'Whether the dismissal of Sarbsri Safal Mian, Devkishun Yadav, Dwarika Rajak, Sibu Roy, Shanti Ram Mahto, Mohammad Ali, Mohammad Ismail Ansari, Nizamuddin Ansari-1, Nizamuddin Ansari-2, Maksud Mianh, Shital Prsad Chaudhary, Mohd. Zamil Khan, Nageshwar Singh, Mantu Mahto, Mahadeo Rawani, Kanhai Lal Mahto, Nanu Ram Mahto and Damu Roy-workmen of M/s. Hindustan Malleables and Forgins Ltd., Bhuli, Dhanabad is proper and justified? ...
Tag this Judgment!