Court : Chhattisgarh
1. The petitioner would assail the legality and validity of the order passed by the SP, Rajnandgaon on 11.3.2003 dismissing him from service; the appellate order dated 9.6.2003 passed by the IG, Police, Raipur Range and the order dismissing his mercy petition by the DGP, PHQ, Raipur in October, 2003 whereby his appeal and mercy petition were dismissed. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Constable in the District Force Rajnandgaon on 7.5.1993. He was served with a charge sheet in February, 2003 vide Annexure-P/1 imputing the following 3 charges:- (i) he remained unauthorizedly absent for a period of 43 days from 21.9.2002 to 4.11.2002 which violated Rule 3 of the CG Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. (ii) he committed indecent act with the prosecutrix and thus committed serious misconduct tarnishing the image of the department. (iii) despite having been punished earlier, he did not improve upon his conduct and thus making himself unsuitable for rendering service in the Police Departm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
CAV Order: 1. Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein seeks to challenge appointment of respondent No.3 as a member of District Consumer Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon. 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop:- 2.1 The State Government in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1A) of Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1986') on the recommendation of the Selection Committee appointed the petitioner as a Member of District Consumer Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon by order dated 29th August, 2008, which she has completed on 2.9.2013. Upon completion of the petitioner's tenure, fresh applications were called for by issuing press-release by the Collector, Rajnandgaon, in which the petitioner, respondent No.3 as well as 23 other candidates submitted their candidature for a Member of District Consumer Redressal Forum, Rajnandg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
CAV Order: 1. Father of our Nation said: - To deprive a man of his natural liberty and to deny to him the ordinary amenities of life is worse than starving the body; it is starvation of the soul, the dweller in the body. Mahatma Gandhi 2. Complaining infringement of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. protection of life and personal liberty, the petitioners herein, who are two in numbers, have filed this writ petition stating inter alia that they have been unlawfully and illegally detained by respondents No.2 and 3 for 113 days depriving them of their personal liberty and therefore, they are entitled for monetary compensation from the respondents jointly and severally, and also seek a direction for holding departmental action for illegal detention against respondent No.2/respondent No.3. 3. The writ petitioners have sought the above-stated relief(s) on the following factual backdrop:- 3.1) The petitioners herein were charge-sheeted an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
CAV Order 1. Magnificent question of law that has cropped up for consideration in this writ petition is whether the State W.P.(S)No.1762/2014 Government is justified in impliedly excluding married daughter of the affected/displaced family from consideration for employment under the Chhattisgarh State Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, as amended, on the ground of her marriage. 2. The above-stated question of law arises for consideration in the following factual matrix of the case: - 3. The petitioner's father Itwar Singh was the owner of land bearing Khasra Nos.73/2, 105/1 and 106/2, total area admeasuring 1.16 acres situate at Village Madwamouha, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba. These lands were acquired by the State Government in exercise of the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the LA Act') for dumping ash products oozing out from the power unit owned by respondent No.2 Chhattisgarh State Electricity Production Company Limited and ultimately, award w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Order On Board 1. Claiming issuance of writ of quo warranto directing 5th respondent Dr. Ramesh Chandra Arya to show cause under what authority he continues to hold the office of Associate Professor (Pathology) in Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences, petitioner herein Kamlesh Shukla has filed this writ petition. 2. Brief facts shorn of unnecessary details requisite to resolve the controversy are as follows: - 3. The Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS), which was earlier under the control of Guru Ghasidas (State) University, advertised the post of Associate Professor (Pathology) on 20-9-2006. Respondent No.5 applied for the said post. Recruitment to the said post was governed by the Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998 (for short 'the MCI Regulations') issued by the Medical Council of India (MCI) in which eligibility qualification prescribed for the post of Associate Professor / Reader is five years' experience in recognized ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Cav Order 1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in the above four writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners herein have questioned legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 5-2-2015 by which their services from the post of Rural Medical Assistant (RMA) have been terminated by the Director, Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, and respondents No.5 to 8 have been appointed in place of the petitioners on the post of Rural Medical Assistant. 3. The above-stated challenge has been made in the following factual matrix of the case incorporated herein-after: - 4. The Directorate of Health Services, Chhattisgarh issued an advertisement on 19-8-2013 for appointment on 741 posts of Rural Medical Assistant (for short 'the RMA'). Total 104 posts were reserved for Other Backward Classes (OBC) out of which 31 posts were reserved for women on the basis of 30% horizontal and compartment-wise reservat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
CAV Order: 1. Renowned issue that emanates for consideration in this writ petition is whether the employer (petitioners herein) is justified in forfeiting the amount of gratuity payable to the employee (respondent herein) on the ground of his dismissal from service without his conviction by jurisdictional criminal Court for an offence involving moral turpitude within the meaning of Section 4 (6) (b) (ii) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter called as PG Act ) ? 2. The above-stated question arises for consideration in the following factual matrix incorporated hereinbelow:- (i) The respondent/employee of the petitioner-Bank was charge-sheeted for having unauthorizedly accessed storage data of Saving Bank Accounts of depositors with a fraudulent intention and upon conclusion of full-fledged departmental inquiry, disciplinary authority by its order dated 31.8.2010 reached at a finding, agreeing with enquiry report, that the employee has caused by his misconduct, irreparable da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Cav Order 1. Superb question of law involved in this batch of writ petitions is whether the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is justified in holding that Commission Vendors engaged by the petitioner/its predecessors-in-interest for selling its food products can be considered to be its employees for the purpose of Section 2 (f) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the EPF Act'). 2. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed these writ petitions questioning the order passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Appellate Tribunal') dated 11-5-2011 (Annexure P-1) in all the four writ petitions by which the Appellate Tribunal has affirmed the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Raipur, deciding the applicability dispute and consequently, determining the amount due under Section 7A of the EPF Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Order on Board 1. Invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking writ of mandamus or suitable direction to respondent No.2/Registrar, Co-operative Societies for appropriate amendment in the service rules in the light of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.2133 of 2011. 2. In Writ Petition (S) No.2133 of 2011 (Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Employee Sangh and another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), this Court struck down Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Ke Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Karamchari Sewa (Niyojan, Nibandhan Tatha Unki Karya Esthithi) Niyam, 1982 as unconstitutional and illegal, pursuant to which and direction given in WP (S) No.1727 of 2012, respondent No.3/Bank has issued the memo to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 25.2.2013 and has proposed certain amendment in the Staff Service Rules. 3. Since no decision has been taken by respondent No.2, who is rule mak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. Stellar issue that has cropped up for consideration is whether Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1955 and the proviso appended thereto with regard to making reservation for persons with disability, is mandatory in nature. 2. The petitioner is a doctor holding degree of B.A.M.S. and a differently abled person. He applied to be considered for the post of Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari on an advertisement issued on 28-5-2008 against nine posts of unreserved physically handicapped category. He was allowed to appear in the written examination and also he was allowed to appear in the interview, but when the final result was announced, his name did not figure in the final select list and later-on he was informed that on account of his hearing impairment, he was found ineligible for the post of Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari and, therefore, he is not entitled to be considered for the said post. 3. Feeling aggrieved and ...
Tag this Judgment!