Search by Keywords x
Indlaw Home                                                                                          contact us contact us | home help
 Welcome Guest | Jul 10 2014
 

HOME

Search By Databases
  

Subject Modules
  down

State Modules
  down

Legal Focus
  down

 

Login

  Subscribe


Latest Updates
Search by Databases
Indlaw Resources
Indlaw Channels

indlaw updates


Judgments

Ziyauddin Ahamad vs State of Uttar Pradesh and another  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 08 Jul 2014]

Deependra and others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 08 Jul 2014]

Govind Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and another  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 08 Jul 2014]

Md. Mafisuddin Ansari vs Managing Director, Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad and others  [JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, 08 Jul 2014]

Anulica Kumar vs State of Jharkhand and others  [JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, 08 Jul 2014]

Sumit Bansal vs State of Punjab  [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, 07 Jul 2014]

Vishal Budhisagar Tripathi vs State of Gujarat and others  [GUJARAT HIGH COURT, 07 Jul 2014]

Vicky @ Mango @ Balelo Kanubhai Chauhan vs Commissioner of Police and others  [GUJARAT HIGH COURT, 07 Jul 2014]

Dinesh Singh vs State of Bihar  [PATNA HIGH COURT, 07 Jul 2014]

Anil Gupta vs Star India Private Limited and others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 07 Jul 2014]

Dinesh Tiwari vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 07 Jul 2014]

State of Bank of Patiala vs Pritam Singh Bedi and others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 07 Jul 2014]

Chhel Singh vs M.G.B. Gramin Bank Pali and others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 07 Jul 2014]

Shreenath Corporation and others vs Consumer Education and Research Society and others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 07 Jul 2014]

(1) Binod Kumar; (2) Joyita Das; (3) Dr. Bhanu Das; (4) Vishal Barnwal; (5) Rahul Mazumdar; (6) Ravi Sankar Singh @ Ravi Kumar Singh vs (1) State of Jharkhand; (2) Sima Kanoria  [JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, 07 Jul 2014]

Bhagirath Choudhary vs State of Jharkhand and others  [JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, 07 Jul 2014]

Bimla Devi and another vs State of Delhi  [DELHI HIGH COURT, 07 Jul 2014]

Mithlesh Kumar Singh vs Union of India and others  [DELHI HIGH COURT, 07 Jul 2014]

Shiva Kant Pandey vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 07 Jul 2014]
Service - Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 - Termination simplicitor - Justifiability - Petitioner filed instant petition challenging the impugned order by which services of petitioner were terminated by respondent nos. 4 and 5 in exercise of powers under the Rules - Claim of petitioner for grant of post-retirement benefits including pension was not being acceded, thus, he filed an application for amendment seeking said relief - Petitioner contended that he had put in more than 14 years of service on the date of his termination, thus, he could not be treated as a temporary employee especially as he was given all the benefits which were given to the regular employees and that merely because the appointment order referred to the appointment as being temporary and terminable on one month's notice, would not make the appointment temporary -

Held, perusal of impugned order passed by respondent revealed that he had drawn his own conclusion from the inquiry report and has held that all other charges except charge no. 4 were proved meaning thereby he has differed with the report of Inquiry Officer (IO) - There was nothing on record to show that the points of difference were ever communicated to petitioner for submission of his explanation before passing the impugned order drawing his own conclusions in the disciplinary proceedings and any opportunity of hearing was given to him in that regard - Moreover, no punishment was imposed by means of the said order though the petitioner's integrity was doubted - Court failed to understand as to what was the purpose of passing such order if no punishment was to be imposed - It appeared that the disciplinary authority was not very sure that such an order would stand the scrutiny of Courts and, thus, he avoided passing an order of punishment, which he could have very well done - In fact, respondent could have even terminated the services of petitioner, instead, he chose to adopt another route, which perhaps, according to him, was available and was a simpler one, i.e. passing an order of termination simplicitor under the Rules - Based on inquiry report, an order of removal or termination from service could not have been passed and in fact same was not passed - Thus, it was not open for respondent to adopt a circuitous route and terminate the services of petitioner in the garb of an order simplicitor under the Rules - Moreover, after passing of interim order by HC, not only the petitioner was allowed to continue in service but he was also granted promotion to the post of Forester, as also the second and third promotional pay scales, which were only granted to regular employees - In view of conduct of respondents themselves in treating the petitioner as a regular employee by giving him all such benefits and also allowing him to retire on attaining the age of superannuation, there appeared to be no justification for sustaining the impugned order of termination - Petition allowed.


Munna Lal @ Suresh Chandra vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 07 Jul 2014]

Teetu @ Omveer vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 07 Jul 2014]

Sunita Devi vs Vishwanath, Tehsildar and another  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 07 Jul 2014]

Chandan Kumar Basu vs State of Bihar  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 07 Jul 2014]

Vishwa Lochan Madan vs Union of India and others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 07 Jul 2014]
Family & Personal - Constitution - Practice & Procedure - Fatwas - Darul Qazas - Sharia Courts - Legal status - Constitutionality - Petitioner alleged that All India Muslim Personal Law Board (Board) strives for the establishment of parallel judicial system in India - Petitioner sought a declaration that the movement/activities being pursued by Board and other similar organizations for establishment of Muslim Judicial System and setting up of Dar-ul-Qazas (Muslim Courts) and Shariat Court in India were absolutely illegal, illegitimate and unconstitutional - Hence instant petition - Whether Dar-ul-Qaza was a parallel Court and 'Fatwa' had any legal status -

Held, one might not object to issuance of Fatwa on a religious issue or any other issue so long it did not infringe upon the rights of individuals guaranteed under law - No Dar-ul-Qazas or for that matter, anybody or institution by any name, should give verdict or issue Fatwa touching upon the rights, status and obligation, of an individual unless such an individual has asked for it - In the case of incapacity of such an individual, any person interested in the welfare of such person might be permitted to represent the cause of concerned individual - In any event, the decision or the Fatwa issued by whatever body being not emanating from any judicial system recognized by law, it was not binding on anyone including the person, who had asked for it - Further, such an adjudication or Fatwa does not have a force of law and, therefore, could not be enforced by any process using coercive method - Any person trying to enforce that by any method should be illegal and to be dealt with in accordance with law - Petition disposed of.


Suresh Chandra vs State of Uttar Pradesh Through Secretary and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 07 Jul 2014]



 Copyright © 1997-2014 | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer