Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1963P& H461
ORDERD.K. Mahajan, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the President recognising his Highness Maharaj Rana Shri Hemant Singh as the Ruler of Dholpur State. This notification was published in the Gazette of India dated the 22nd of December, 1956, as SRO 3086, in Part II, Section 3.2. The last Ruler of the State was Maharaj Rana Udai Bhan Singh. He died on the 22nd of October, 1954, without leaving any direct male lineal descendant. The following pedigree-table will disclose the relations he left behind: MAJARAJ RANA KIRAT SINGH | _______________________|_________________________ | | | Kr. Jhande Kr. Pohop Singh Maharaj Rana Singh Bhagwant Singh | Kr. Kulendra Singh Maharaj Rana Nihal Singh | _____________________________________________________|_________ | | | | Maharaj Rana Maharaj Rana Kr. Birendra Kr. Keshav Udai Bhan Singh Singh | (the last incumbent) | ________|________ | | | | __________________|_______________ | Kr. U...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1965P& H212
Harbans Singh, J. (1)This petition and a number of other such petitions have been referred to a Division Bench because a common point of always is involved in all of them namely as to the validity or the effect of the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas (Validation) Act, 1963.(2) Facts in these petitions are not quite identical and besides this law point various another points also arise. It is not necessary to go into facts of the individual petitions for the limited purpose of deciding the validity and effect of the validating Act referred to above.(3) The facts necessary for the decisions of the point referred may briefly he stated as follows:Under the Punjab Development of Damaged areas Act 1951, which replaced the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act 1951 which replaced the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Ordinance (16 of 1950), 'damaged area', as defined in sub-clause (d) of section 2 means 'an area which the State Government may be notification declare to be a damaged are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1965P& H401
H.R. Khanna, J.1. In the present and seven connected petitions Nos. 1089, 1090, 1091, 1092, 1093, 1114 and 1115 of 1962 under Article 226 of the Constitutions of India the Division Bench, consisting of Mehar Singh J. and myself, referred the following two questions for decision obey a larger Bench:'(1) Whether the order of the Punjab Government dated 29th September 1961 bifurcating the P. E. S. (Class II) into school and Collage Cadres is violative in whole or in part of the principle of preserving inter seniority embodied in rule 16 of the Punjab Services Integration Rule 1957? (2) Are the promotions to P. E. S. (Class I), in the wake of the aforesaid bifurcation of the respondents who were originally junior to the petitioners in the joint P. E. S. (Class II) list in preference to the petitioners on the sole ground of the nature of the said Rule and Article 16 of the Constitution. (2) The petitioners filed these petitions on the allegations that there were two classes of gazetted offi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1965P& H444
Dulat, J.(1) The dispute in this case is if I may say so domestic as the contestants are all members of the staff of this High Court.(2) Prior to the 1st November 1956 there were in existence two States being the previous State of Punjab and the State of Pepsu. There was a High Court in Pepsu. By the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the two States were merged to form the present state of Punjab and the Pepsu High Court an were absorbed here. A question arose at the time as to how the integration of the tow staffs was to be effected, The Punjab State had framed certain integration rules and the Chief Justice of the Punjab High Court adopted most of those rules with certain modification and ordered integration to be made accordingly. A joint list was then prepared indicating the inter e seniority of the members of the joint staff. Speaking generally it appears that the officials who has come from the Pepsu High Court were not fully satisfied and a large number of representations were mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1967P& H98
ORDERS.K. Kapur, J.1. By this petition the petitioner has asked for quashing of the order dated 31st October, 1961 (Annexure XI to the petition) passed by the Government of India and communicated to the petitioner by Shri S.B. Khare, Under Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner is at present working as Principal, Government Post Graduate Basic Training College, Raipur, in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Before the reorganisation of States by the States Reorganisation Act on 1-11-1956 he was employed as Principal of the Teachers' Training College (L.T.) at Dewas, which is stated to be the only institution of this kind in the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat. The State of Madhya Bharat merged in the new State of Madhya Pradesh from 1-11-1956 under the States Reorganisation Act. It is alleged that the State of Madhya Pradesh published a provisional integration list (Annexure I to the petition) setting out the principles formulated for being observed, as far as may be, in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1966P& H423
R.S. Narula, J.1. This judgment will dispose of a bunch of three writ petitions (C. W. No. 396 of 1963--Khan Chand v. State of Punjab, C. W. No. 196 of 1963--Sidhu Ram v. State of Punjab, and C. W. No. 1605 of 1963--Hari Chand v. State of Punjab), in which common questions relating to interpretation and scope of the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 10 of 1953, hereinafter called the Ceiling Act, call for decision.2. The facts giving rise to these cases are also somewhat similar. Main arguments have been addressed on the side of the petitioners by the learned counsel in Khan Chand's case. The brief facts of that writ petition may, therefore, be first stated. The petitioner is a displaced person from West Pakistan. In lieu of agricultural land left behind by him in Pakistan the petitioner was allotted 137.22 Standard Acres equivalent to 330.40 ordinary acres to land in villages Kotli and Suchan, Tehsil Sirsa, District Hissar. Righ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1968P& H47
ORDERR.S. Narula, J. 1. This writ petition is mainly based on a complaint about the alleged failure of the respondents to effectively implement the directive of the Central Government dated April 18, 1965 under Section 117 of the States Reorganisation Act, 37 of 1956 (hereinafter called the Act), relating to pay and other matters concerning officers included in the final joint seniority list of the group of services consisting of Superintendents Deputy Superintendents, Assistants-in-charge and Assistants of the Punjab Civil Secretariat consequent on the merger of the erstwhile Popsu State with that of the State of Punjab.2. At the time of the merger of the two States of October 31, 1956 the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant in the Civil Secretariat of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union (commonly known as PEPSU) in a substantive permanent capacity in the time-scale of pay of Rs. 150--10--300. He was consequently integrated with effect from November 1, 1958, in the joint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1968P& H19
ORDERR.S. Narula, J. 1. Rajinder Pal Singh and 124 others, petitioners, are the employees of the office of the Accountant General Punjab, posted at Chandigarh The entire office of the said Accountant General used to he at Simla before 1964. On January 21, 1964, an office order (Annexure 'A') was issued by the Accountant General, desiring those officials of that office, who wished to be transferred to Chandigarh, to furnish their willingness to the Administration Section of the office by the 30th ot January 1964 as it was decided that a part of that office might be shifted to Chandigarh. It was made clear in the office order, which was circulated to all the sections in the office that Government will have no obligation either at that time or in the near future thereafter to provide any residential accommodation to the staff which might choose to go to Candigarh. On February 10, 1964, another office order (Annexure 'AA') was issued by the office of the Accountant General intimating to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1968]67ITR138(P& H)
The facts necessary for the decision of this income-tax reference may briefly be stated as under : Prabhu Dayal, working under the name and style of Ganeshi Lal Prabhu Dayal, Dadri, (in the erstwhile Jind State), was instrumental in discovering the existence of kanakar deposit in Jind State and in bringing about an agreement through his good offices between one Shanti Prasad Jain and theerstwhile Jind State (forming part of the Punjab State at the time of the reference and now, after the reorganisation, forming part of Haryana State), for the acquisation of the sole and exclusive monopoly rights of exploiting these deposits and manufacturing cement in the said Jind state, vide an agreement dated 2nd of April, 1938. This agreement was to be operative for 25 years in the first instance, and at the option of the aforesaid Shanti Prasad, was liable to be extended to 100 years. Later a public limited company, named Messrs. Dalmia Dadri Cement Limited (hereinafter referred to as the company)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1968P& H217; 1968CriLJ775
Mehar Singh, C.J. 1-11. (After narrating facts, the judgment continues as under:--) The case then came before a Special Bench consisting of Dua. P. C. Pandit and Gurdev Singh JJ. on September 22. 1966, on which date the counsel who had been representing the petitioner reported that the petitioner had died and he was representing nobody in the case. On that the learned Judge said in their order that 'In these circumstances, we direct that notice of this case be given to the Advoratp-General so that he may assist this Court in the matter.' As the respondents ' were not present, they also issued notice to them for October 13,1986. On October 4, 1966, respondent 1 moved Criminal Miscellaneous application No. 1030 of 1906 referring to the death of the petitioner and the presence of some Judges of this Court at the funeral and then saying that 'It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that in the circumstances aforesaid, your Lordships may be pleased either to direct the counsel of the petition...
Tag this Judgment!