Uttaranchal Court April 2004 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.
Ram Autar and ors. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)2UPLBEC67
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length.2. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions for the issue of a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioners as regular employees of the department and pay them salary as it is being given to the petitioners in pursuance of the order dated 29.7.1999 with all the benefits available to the regular employees of the department in the corresponding cadre and for a writ of certiorari quashing orders dated 10.4.2000, 6.9.2000, 21.4.2000 and 29.8.2000.3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioners were appointed on daily wages on the posts of Meth and Beldar and they were made work charge employees of the department between 1983 and 1988 and since then they are continuously working in the Department.4. That State of U.P. has issued a G.O. on 15.10.1997 in respect of regularisation of the work charge employees of the depart...
Dalip Singh Kathayat and ors. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)2UPLBEC61
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. Heard Shri Manoj Tiwari learned Counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondents.2. By the present writ petition the petitioners have prayed for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to sanction the pay scale of Rs. 7500-1200/- on the post of Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools/Assistant Basic Education Officer and the corresponding higher pay scale to the post of Deputy Basic Education Officer on the term identical to as contained in Government Order dated 20.12.2001.3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner No. 1 was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in Jagannath Madhyamik Vidvalaya, Chaupata on 1.7.74 and then he was promoted as Headmaster, Junior High School w.e.f., 1.7.77 and ultimately he was promoted as Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools under 10% quota w.e.f., 6.11.89 and presently he is working in Ramnagar, District Nainital.4. Petitioner No. 2 wa...
Abhijit Umesh Barshilia and ors. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-24-2004
Reported in: (2005)2UPLBEC59
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. By the present writ petition the petitioners have prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the candidatures of the petitioners for the appointment as L.T. Grade Teachers.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement on 24.6.2002 whereby 1050 posts of Assistant Teachers L.T. Grade were notified. The last date for submission of application was specified as 15.7.2002. According to the advertisement a candidate should have completed 21 years of age but should not have crossed 40 years as on 1.7.2002 was eligible for such appointment. The qualification for such posts was graduation along with L.T., B.T. or B.Ed. The petitioners have submitted that they are post-graduate in different subjects and admitted to B. Ed. course for the Academic Session 2001-2002 in S.S. Jeena, Almora Campus of Kumaun University, Nainital....
Balwant Singh Bisht Vs. the Managing Director, Jal Nigam and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)3UPLBEC134
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the issued of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the orders dated 8.2.1992 and 16.7.1993 passed by the respondent No. 4.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was a Pump Beldar employed on daily wages under the Executive Engineer, Garhwal Jal Sansthan, Kotdwar, The petitioner was originally appointed as daily wages Chaukidar on 5.2.1989 and thereafter petitioner was transferred to the office of the Executive Engineer, Jal Sansthan, Kotdwar. The petitioner has submitted that he was transferred from Jal Nigam to Jal Sansthan on 2.11.1990 and the petitioner completed continuous service for more than 240 days in the calendar year and as such the petitioner was entitled to be regularized under the law. The petitioner has stated that his services were terminated vide orde...
Mahipal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)3UPLBEC128
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. Heard Sh. D.S. Patni learned Counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondents.2. By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the correct pro-rata pension considering the monetary benefits accrued to the petitioner on account of junior persons promoted during the period when the petitioner was in service of respondents along with interest of 18% form the date of retirement i.e. 31-12-1984.3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially inducted in the service of respondents on the post of Superintendent B/R Grade II on 31-8-63 and thereafter opted Surveyor Grade II in the year 1979,4. The petitioner had stated that he retired from the post of Superintendent B/R Grade II/S.A Grade II w.c.f. 31-12-1984. It was submitted that the respondents are not paying him correct fixation of pro-rata-pens...
Brijpal Singh Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-20-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR552]; (2004)3UPLBEC132
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the issue of writ of in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.12.2000 and 20.3.2004, Annexures 1 to 6 to the writ petition.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition arc that the petitioner was posted as constable at police line, Udham Singh Nagar and the petitioner was placed under suspension for his absence from duty for short durations. The respondent No. 3 was appointed Enquiry officer. The petitioner informed the Enquiry Officer by registered post that he has sustained fracture in his leg and therefore, he was unable to attend the duty as well as the enquiry proceedings. Respondent No. 3 has completed the inquiry in the absence of the petitioner and submitted his inquiry report on 15.11.2000. Respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and ultimately on 13.12.2000 respondent No. 2 issued an order of d...
Rajeev Barthwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC71(UHC); (2004)3UPLBEC124
P.C. Pant, J.1. By means of this petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 21.3.2001 (Annexure P-l) passed by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, where by the dispute reside by the petitioner was refused from being referred for adjudication to the Labour Court.2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was employed in Forest Research Institute, Dehradun in perennial nature of work since 1.5.99. However, just to deprive the petitioner of his service benefits, the said institute introduced camoufledge and contract system whereby the petitioner as shown engaged under a contractor for his services. It is alleged that petitioner was working as Account Clerk with the respondent No. 3 w.e.f. 1.5.1999 but his engagement was shown through responde..: No. 4 i.e. M/s. Eagle Hunter Solutions Ltd. Copy of the State agreement as Annexure P-2 to the writ petition. During the serv...
Mukesh Kumar Singhal Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Apr-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)3UPLBEC131
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. Heard Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 5.3.1997 passed by respondent No. 4.3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was working in State Bank of India, Laxman Jhula Road, Rishikesh, Dehradun and according to prosecution story he has committed a serious fraud by succeeding one Mr. Dharmcndra Kumar for being fraud. The petitioner was called for explanation and he replied it on 31.7.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner was suspended on 5.3.1997 with an allegation that the petitioner was involved in the forgery case. The respondents appointed an Inquiry Officer on 8.10.2001 and the date of inquiry was fixed on 30.10.2001. The respondents also lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioner Under Sections 420, 409, 466, 467, 471, & 120B of I.P.C, Police Station Rishikesh, D...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›