Uttaranchal Court November 2012 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.
Rajendra Prasad Arya Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Nov-05-2012
1) Heard. 2) By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought following reliefs : i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing/commanding the respondents to promote the petitioner from 31.05.2012, when junior to the petitioner also promoted as Additional Commissioner considering the entire service record and merit of the petitioner. And further restraining the respondent to given promotion one Shri Roshan Lal, who is at serial no. 25, in seniority list. ii. Issue a writ , order or direction, which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. iii. To award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. 3) In brief the petitioner has stated that he is Deputy Commissioner working as In-charge Additional Commissioner with the Rural Development Department in Pauri Garhwal. He has pleaded that his promotion is due on the post of Additional Commissioner, Rural Development...
Satish Kumar Vs. Garrison Engineers, M.E.S. Prem Nagar, District Dehra ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Nov-02-2012
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. In this writ petition, the petitioner being son of one Late Sri Satya Prakash, who was an employee of the establishment of respondent No.1, assails order passed by respondent No. 1 rejecting the prayer for compassionate appointment. Undisputed facts are stated hereunder: The father of the writ petitioner died on 1st August, 2001 in harness. Almost immediately after the date of death, the petitioner on 5th November, 2001 applied for compassionate appointment in any post befitting to his qualification. This application was received and entertained and action was taken by the respondents authority asking Tehsildar concerned to furnish a report about the petitioner owing any movable and immovable property. In response to the letter dated 8th July, 2002 written by the respondent for above purpose, the Tehsildar concerned reported that his family did not have any property either movable or immovable in nature. On receipt of this report, the reaction of the responden...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›