Court : Allahabad Lucknow
In short, the facts of the case are that on the basis of a report submitted by the Checking Staff on 2.2.1993, the petitioner,namely, Bal Mukund Tripathi, who was the Conductor and was posted in Mirzapur Depot of the U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation [in short referred to as the Corporation], was placed under suspension by the Regional Manager of the Corporation vide order dated 1.3.1993 and subjected to disciplinary proceedings. Later on, a charge sheet dated 5.3.19993 containing 15 charges was served upon the petitioner and the main charge against the petitioner was that on checking, he failed to furnish the 'Way bill" and he did not issue Tickets to the passengers though had realized fare from them and incited the passengers against the checking staff. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegations levelled against him and alleged that the checking staff had demanded illegal gratification from the petitioner and on his inability to satisfy their demand the checki...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad Lucknow
A.H. Khan, J. Petitioner Rameshwar Prasad has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers; "(i) That a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing that part of the order dated 21.12.1999 by which the petitioner has been absorbed on the post of Project Manager w.e.f. 19.11.1988. (ii) That a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to absorb the petitioner on the post of General Manager in the U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. w.e.f. 19.11.1990 by treating him on the post of General Manager w.e.f. 1.1.1990 on the date he was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer (Selection Grade) in his parent organisation. (iii) That a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to grant the petitioner the promotion to the next higher post of Chief General Manager/Jt. Managing Director with effect from 1.1.1994 on the basis o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad Lucknow
Anil Kumar, J. Heard Shri Sudhir Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.08.2012 passed by Superintendent of Police, District-Shrawasti. Facts in brief of the present case are that petitioner was recruited as a Constable in the Arme Police and after completing the training from RTC, he was posted at 11th Battalion, Sitapur. Thereafter, in the year 1978, he was selected for the post of driver and worked in different places of the State of U.P.. In the year 1986, after enforcement of the 4th Pay Commission, he was granted first promotional pay scale. Lastly, in the year 1992, as super selection grade has not been provided in the 5th Pay Commission, so the petitioner has not been given 2nd promotional pay scale after completing 24 years his service and also not given next promotional on the post of Inspector in pay scale Rs.5500-9000/- and 6500...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad Lucknow
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rishad Murtza, learned Government Advocate and perused the record. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:- (i) to quash the order dated 12.08.2015 in Criminal Case No.360 of 2014, "State of U.P. vs. Arvind Kejriwal" in pursuance of the Charge Sheet No.122 of 2014 dated 09.07.2014 in Case Crime No.608 of 2014, under Section 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, Police Station-Kotwali Musafirkhana, District-Amethi, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Musafirkhana, District-Amethi. (ii) to stay the entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.360 of 2014, "State of U.P. vs. Arvind Kejriwal" in pursuance of the Charge Sheet No.122 of 2014 dated 09.07.2014 in Case Crime No.608 of 2014, under Section 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, Police Station-Kotwali Musafirkhana, District-Amethi, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Musafirkhana, District-Amethi, during pendency of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad Lucknow
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 01.07.2015 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad rejecting the application of the petitioners for waiver of the statutory deposit under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act, 2002). 2. Considering the issues involved, the facts need not be stated in detail. Suffice it to say that the petitioners were granted three different loans on 25.08.2010, namely cash limit for a sum of Rs.5.70 crores, term loan of one crore and bank guarantee for a sum of rupees three crores by respondent no. 2. The petitioners did not repay the loan to the bank and all the three loan accounts of the petitioners were declared as nonperforming assets (NPA) on 30.11.2011. The respondent-bank thereafter issued a demand notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 05.06.2012 to the petitioners for a sum of Rs.5,88,34,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad Lucknow
Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. According to the petitioners, their marriage was solemnized on 17.6.2010 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Madhuban Marriage Hall Mohan Road, Lucknow and after marriage, they lived together for sometime and from the wedlock, a baby, namely, Aaradhya, was born, who is at present 5 years old. In the year 2012, due to some quarrel, petitioner No.2-Anjali Verma lodged an FIR against the petitioner No.1.-Swapnil Verma, which was registered as Case Crime No. 302/12 under Sections 498 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at police station Sikanderpur district Ballia and since then, petitioners are living separately. It has been stated by the petitioners that since they did not cohabitated so long and further it is impossible for them to live together, therefore, they decided to enter into compromise to take divorce by mutual consent and filed a petition before the competent court. In these backg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad Lucknow
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J. The present reference to the Full Bench was made by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 20 December 2006; the issue referred for adjudication being as follows: "Which date will be relevant for the purpose of determination of criteria of availability and eligibility for promotion to the post of Lecturer grade i.e. the date on which vacancy occurs to forward to the Selection Committee/Commission or the first day of year of the recruitment when the vacancy is notified for recruitment?" The Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 established a Board for the selection of teachers in institutions recognised under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the introduction of the Bill in the State Legislature furnished the following rationale for the constitution of a statutory Board: "The appointment of teachers in secondary institutions recognised by the Board of High School and Interme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad Lucknow
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J. The present reference before the Full Bench has been occasioned by a referring order of a Division Bench dated 24 November 2014. The Division Bench noticed that there was a conflict between the decisions of the Division Benches in State of U P Vs Om Prakash Verma1 and Rajesh Yadav Vs Director of Education (Madhyamik), U P, Allahabad2. The Division Bench was of the view that the field was covered by a judgment of a Full Bench in Gopal Dubey Vs District Inspector of Schools3. However, the Division Bench thought it appropriate to refer the matter to the Full Bench since the judgment of the earlier Division Bench in Rajesh Yadav (supra) had considered both the earlier decisions in Om Prakash Verma as well as the judgment of the Full Bench in Gopal Dubey. Accordingly, the following questions of law have been referred for decision: (1) Whether in the absence of any sanctioned post, can a direction in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad Lucknow
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J. The issue On 7 November 2012, a Division Bench referred the following question of law for resolution by the Full Bench: "Whether a temporary police constable appointed under Section 2 of the Police Act 1861 (Police Act), who has not been placed on probation, can be terminated from service in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (Police Regulation) or whether the procedure provided under Para 541 of the Police Regulations dealing with the constables on probation shall be applicable" The issue before the Full Bench, turns upon the interpretation of the provisions of the Police Act and of the Police Regulations. The issue is whether a person, who has been appointed as a police constable on a temporary basis, is entitled to the benefit of Regulation 541 of the Police Regulations. The constables who are before this Court, contend that the services of a person who is appointed on a temporary basis, can...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad Lucknow
The petition has been filed in the public interest by a practising Advocate in order to raise two concerns relating to the issuance of ration cards under the National Food Security Act, 20131. The first issue relates to the validity of the provisions of Section 13 of the Act on the ground that the statutory provision while recognizing the eldest woman member as the head of the household does not contemplate a situation where there may be no woman in the family. In order to appreciate this grievance, we extract hereinbelow the provisions of Section 13 of the Act: "13. Women of eighteen years of age or above to be head of household for purpose of issue of ration cards.- (1) The eldest woman who is not less than eighteen years of age, in every eligible household, shall be head of the household for the purpose of issue of ration cards. (2) Where a household at any time does not have a woman or a woman of eighteen years of age or above, but has a female member below the age of eighteen year...
Tag this Judgment!