Uttaranchal Court May 2001 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.
Ashraf Ali Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-30-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR1257]; (2002)1UPLBEC6
P.C. Verma and M. C. Jain, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology in presence of the Vice-Chancellor, who assisted the Court very fairly.2. According to the respondents, the post of the Teaching Associate does not find place in the statute. The post has also not been created under any Government order. These posts have been created to meet the exigencies of situation as the qualified Assistant Professors were nor available. Now, regular AssistantProfessors are available, therefore, services of the petitioner are not required. Hence, the impugned order has been passed.3. The University did not consider this aspect of the matter that when tile University was in need and there was exigency, the services of the petitioner were required to meet the situation. At that time, when Assistant Professors were not available, the petitioner and some others carne to the rescue of the University. Some of t...
Dr. P.C. Bhandari Vs. Additional Director, Animal Husbandry Department
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-24-2001
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR405]; (2003)ILLJ99UC
M.C. Jain, J.1. Heard Sri J.C. Joshi, counsel for the petitioner at length.2. The petitioner was a drawing and disbursing officer. During the period of his employment, audit pointed out certain irregularities having financial implications. The petitioner retired in 1995. Part of his gratuity was withheld and the same was released in the year 1999. The petitioner claimed interest on the amount withheld. According to him, there is inordinate delay and he is entitled to the interest on the amount so withheld. It is clarified by the department that the excess amount paid owing to fault of the petitioner was subsequently realised from the concerned officials some time in 1999 and thereafter the amount of gratuity, which was withheld, had been released.3. Having regard to the explanation as offered, in our opinion, petitioner is not entitled to claim interest on the amount so withheld.4. The petition is hereby dismissed....
Registrar, High Court of Uttaranchal Vs. State of Uttaranchal and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-23-2001
Reported in: (2001)3UPLBEC2090
A.A. Desai, C.J. and M.C. Jain, J.1. On 16.4.2001, a news-item appeared in Hindi newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' reporting the calamity of Naini Lake. On this basis thereof, we issued notices to authorities, namely, Lake Region Special Area Development Authority. Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital (Municipal Board), Kumaon Jai Sansthan, Public Works Department and District Administration as they have been charged with duty to maintain the lake. Various deficiencies, defects and defaults have been pointed out to them from time to time.2. We have to-day heard learned Advocate General, Shri U.K. Uniyal on behalf of Lake Region Special Area Development Authority, Shri Nand Prasad Counsel for the Nagar Palika Parishad, Shri M. S. Pal on, behalf of President, Ghora Chalak Sewa Samiti, Ghora Stand, Malli Tal, Nainital, Shri M.M. Ghildiyal on behalf of Jal Sansthan and Shri Sanjay Kaushik, learned amicus curiae.3. During the course of hearing, we noticed certain activities, which are seriously dangerou...
Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttaranchal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-14-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3154
M.C. Jain, J.1. Accused-appellant Pratap Singh has preferred this appeal from jail against the judgment and order dated 31-8-2000 passed by Sri Lekha Singh, Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, in S.T. No. 27 of 1999, whereby he has been convicted under Section 307, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of ten years.2. The prosecution case as emerging from the F.I.R. and the evidence adduced in the Court may be set forth briefly. The incident occurred on 17-5-1999 at about 9 p.m. in village Jumma, P.S. Dharchula, district, Pithoragrah and the written F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by Janaki Devi on 18-5-1999 at 7.50 a.m. at the concerned police station. The injured and the victim of the incident was her husband Bir Singh. The appellant is his neighbour. On 16-5-1999, in the absence of Bir Singh, the appellant reached his house and hurled filthy abuses on his wife and mother under the influence of liquor. Bir Singh returned his house on 17-5-1999 in the evening from Dharchula and was...
Dr. Prabhakar Singh Vs. M.D., U.P. Seeds and Tarai Development Corpora ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-03-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR1038]; (2002)IIILLJ18UC
A.A. Desai, C.J. and P.C. Verma, J. 1. Heard Mr. Patni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dobhal learned counsel for the respondents at length.2. The petitioner was sent on deputation to Tarai Seed Corporation since 1999. Initially the corporation proposed to absorb the petitioner on the condition if he obtains no objection certificate or resigns from the parent department. The tentative order of absorption however was cancelled before the petitioner could obtain no objection certificate. The main theme of argument of Mr. Patni is that he was entitled to be heard and no such opportunity was granted therefore the order was vitiated. Looking at the background no right was vested. The impugned order has not divested any right, further repatriating an officer to the parent department is neither punishment nor a stigma. The submission is, therefore, devoid of merits. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order of repatriating the petitioner.3. Petition dismissed....
Mahipal Singh Vs. Additional Director of Agriculture (Hills) and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-01-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR130]; (2002)IVLLJ50UC
A.A. Desai, C.J. and P.C. Verma, J. 1. The petitioner has questioned the correctness and legality of the order of cancellation of his appointment, vide order dated December 14, 1989. The effect of the suspension order was suspended. This Court, while granting the stay of suspension on February 27, 1990, clarified that it was open for the respondents to pass a fresh order granting opportunity to the petitioner. Even after more than eleven years, the respondents have not availed the liberty as granted. The petitioner, in terms of the interim order, is continuing in the employment. In view of this, we set aside the impugned order of cancellation. The petitioner shall continue in the employment as is continuing in terms of the interim order dated February 27, 1990.2. The writ petition is allowed....
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›