Uttaranchal Court October 2003 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.
Shyam Lal Vs. State of Uttaranchal and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC8
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order/notice dated 30.5.2003 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) by which the petitioner has been directed to entire in the forenoon of 31st October, 2003.2. Brief facts given rise to the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed on 17th October, 1972 on the post of Operator in work charge establishment, Irrigation Department, Dakpatathar. At the time of appointment, the petitioner was working on the post of Pump Operator.3. Petitioner has stated in Paragraph 4 of the writ petition that in the year 1979 at the time of revised pay scale/promotional scale, there was a requirement of providing date of birth certificate and the same was required very urgently as the process of pay fixation was going to be held. The petitioner, therefore, has rushed to Gram Pradhan of his village who has issued the birth certificate...
Khajaan Singh Vs. Executive Engineer, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan and anr ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC27
Rajesh Tandon, J. 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of transfer dated 14th August, 2003 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), by which the petitioner has been transferred from the Sub-Division Barkot to Branch Office Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan, Uttarkashi.2. Brief facts given rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Peon on 1st April, 1979 in the office of Assistant Engineer, Garhwal Jal Sansthan, Barkot which is now called the Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan. From time to time, the petitioner was transferred from Barkot to Uttarkashi and thereafter in August, 1990 the petitioner was transferred from Uttarkashi to Tehsil Purola in the office of Assistant Engineer. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from Tehsil Purola to Barkot in the year 1993. Now, the petitioner was again transferred from Barkot to Uttarkashi, therefore, the present petition has been filed challenging the same.3. Heard Sri S.K. Posti, lear...
Chandra Singh Vs. Mukhya Lekhadhikari Vibhag-char (Pension Anubhag), U ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC5
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make the actual amount of pension to the petitioner, which he was getting prior to revised pension in accordance with the old calculation.2. Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are that the petitioner was Constable Driver in Civil Police of U.P. and he was in service for the last 26 years. The petitioner has retired on 1.4.1986 from Pithoragarh under the voluntary retirement scheme.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that after taking voluntary retirement, the petitioner was getting the pension to the tune of Rs. 534/- per month. However, the petitioner has received the pension after deducting Rs. 173/- per month against the accumulated amount (Rashikaran), thus, he was receiving the pension of Rs. 361/-per month. The petitioner has stated that according to the revised pay-scale which were enforced fro...
Darshan Singh Rawat Vs. State of Uttaranchal and anr.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC30
Rajesh Tandon, J. 1. Heard Sri Sandeep Tandon, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 10th July, 2001 passed by the respondent No. 2 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Government High School, Bhamrai, Khal to Government High School, Mahadev Chatti.3. Since, the transfer order was passed in a routine manner and in the public interest, no interference is required under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.4. As will appear from the transfer order dated 10th July, 2001, that it is a routine transfer and is fully covered by the judgment of the Apex Court reported in the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., AIR 1991 Supreme Court 532, that the transfer orders passed in public interest and for administrative reasons are not amenable to interference. The observations of the Apex Court to that effect are quoted below :--'In our op...
Khyali Ram Vs. State of Uttaranchal Through the Secretary, Revenue and ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC24
Rajesh Tandon, J. 1. Heard Sri B.S. Khanka, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.D. Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel.2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give charge/joining to the petitioner on the post of Kanungo/Revenue Inspector according to the promotion order dated 1/2.9.2003.3. Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are that the petitioner is a Senior Patwari and belongs to Schedule Caste category in the District Almora but, he was not promoted for the post of Revenue Inspector/Kanungo. Therefore, he has filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital on 5th June, 2003. The petitioner has prayed in the appeal that he may be promoted as his juniors (Schedule Caste) have been promoted. It was stated that in the final seniority list, the number of the petitioners were 125 and for the promotion 18% reservation was given to the Sc...
Bandana Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretary, Agriculture, ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC20
Rajesh Tandon, J. 1. Heard Sri I.D. Paliwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.S. Verma, learned Standing Counsel (State of U.P.).2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to disburse the family pension of the petitioner's husband due to him on 11th February, 1994 and further to release other post retirement benefits for which her husband was entitled i.e., Provident Fund, Gratuity and Group Insurance etc.3. Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are that the petitioner is the wife of the deceased Sri Sate Singh who was an employee in the Plant Protection Office, Department of Agriculture at Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal. At the time of death, late Sri Sate Singh was working as Senior Assistant in the aforesaid department who died on 11th February, 1994 at Pauri.4. According to the petitioner her husband had joined the Agriculture Department in Lower Subordinate Service on 17.5.1955. Since, then the pet...
Constable 20 C.P. Manoj Kumar Malik and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Oct-30-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC32
Rajesh Tandon, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the petitioners Shri Vivek Shukla, has present on behalf of respondent No. 1. On behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4 Standing Counsel is present.2. Heard Counsel for the parties.3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioners are Constables or Head Constables in G.R.P. or in Civil Police and arc posted in the District Haridwar.4. The grievances of the petitioners are that they have opted for Uttar Pradesh after the formation of Uttaranchal State under Uttar Pradesh Re-organization Act, 2000. The petitioners have stated that they have given their options well within time for their posting for Uttar Pradesh. It was stated by the petitioners that their options have not been considered by the Advisory Committee as yet.5. Counsel for the petitioners have also prayed that they may be relieved from Uttaranchal to Uttar Pradesh.6. Counsel for the petitioners have stated that the Central Government has not framed any ...
Head Constable C.P. No. 82 Rohitash Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Oct-30-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC35
Rajesh Tandon, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the petitioners Shri Vivek Shukla, has present on behalf of respondent No. 1.. On behalf of the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 Standing Counsel is present.2. Heard Counsel for the parties.3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition arc that the petitioners arc Constables or Head Constables in G.R.P. and are posted in the District Haridwar.4. The grievances of the petitioners are that they have opted for Uttar Pradesh after the formation of Uttaranchal State under Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. The petitioners have stated that they have given their options well within time for their posting for Uttar Pradesh. It was stated by the petitioners that their options have not been considered by the Advisory Committee as yet.5. Counsel for the petitioners have also prayed that they may be relieved from Uttaranchal to Uttar Pradesh.6. Counsel for the petitioners have stated that the Central Government has not framed any policy of final allo...
Gopal Singh Bhandari Vs. Mohd. Farooq and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Oct-29-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ1311
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties Mr. I.S. Mehra, Mr. Tanveer Alam Khan and Mr. P.S. Rawat in Appeal Nos. 1359 and 1360 of 2001.2. The applicant has filed the present Appeal No. 1360 of 2001 (old No. 284 of 1990) Gopal Singh Bhandari v. Mohd. Farooq and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. challenging the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to the extent of the liability which has been extended upon the owner and another Appeal No. 1359 of 2001 (old No. 306 of 1990) has been filed by the insurance company challenging the award of the Claims Tribunal to the extent of the liability extended upon insurance company of Rs. 1,50,000.3. Mr. Tanveer Alam Khan is present on behalf of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Haldwani as a counsel for the appellant in Appeal No. 1359 of 2001. Mr. I.S. Mehra is appearing on behalf of Mohd. Farooq claimant-respondent and Mr. P.S. Rawat on behalf of Gopal Singh Bhandari owner-respondent No. 2 in Appeal No. 1359 of 2001 and on behal...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. O.N.G.C. Ltd. (as Agent of Wijsmullar S ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Oct-24-2003
Reported in: [2004]265ITR129(Uttaranchal)
S.H. Kapadia, C.J.1. On February 27, 1997, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, moved an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before the Tribunal requesting the Tribunal that statement of case may be drawn up and the question of law arising from its order dated June 20, 1990, in Income-tax Appeal No. 3407/Delhi of 1988 be referred for our opinion. This application dated February 27, 1997, was rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated February 23, 1998. Hence, the Department has moved this court seeking the direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of case and refer the question of law to this court. The present Application No. 415 of 2001 is moved under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. The matter has been transferred from the Allahabad High Court.Despite notice the assessee has remained absent.Facts :The assessee is a non-resident company. The assessee was engaged by the ONGC to execute the work of oil exploration and extract...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »