Jharkhand High Court
Rohit Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 March, 2014
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.120 of 2011
Premchand Ram ....... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ........ Respondents
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Petitioner : Mr. Moti Gope
For the Respondents : J.C. to Sr. S.C.II
10/26.03.2014Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievances of the petitioner have been redressed during the pendency of the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
A. Mohanty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.2803 of 2003
Mahesh Narayan Jha ....... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ........ Respondents
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Petitioner : Mr. Afaque Ahmad
For the Respondents :
I.A.No. 637 of 2014
04/26.03.2014 The applicants herein seeks substitution in place of sole deceased
petitioner who is said to have died on 22.8.2013 claiming themselves to be the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased petitioner.
Learned counsel for the State does not object to the same. Accordingly, the applicants are allowed to be substituted in place of the deceased petitioner for which necessary correction shall be carried out by the counsel for the petitioner- applicants in the array of parties in red ink during the course of the day.
I.A. No. 673 of 2014 stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
A. Mohanty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.2569 of 2010
Hiran Kumar Panna ....... Petitioner
Versus
Ranchi Khunti Central Cooperative Bank & anr. ........ Respondents
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad
For the Respondents : Mr. M.K.Roy
I.A.No. 3791 of 2012
07/26.03.2014 The applicant herein seeks substitution in place of sole deceased
petitioner who is said to have died on 31.3.2011 claiming herself to be widow of the deceased petitioner. It has been stated that other two legal heirs of the deceased petitioner are the two daughters who have already been married and not concerned with the affairs.
Having regard to the aforesaid statement made in the instant interlocutory application, the applicant is permitted to be substituted in place of deceased petitioner for which necessary correction shall be carried out by the counsel for the petitioner- applicant in the array of parties in red ink within a week.
I.A. No. 3791 of 2012 stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
A. Mohanty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.3575 of 2011
Sujata Kumari ....... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & others ........ Respondents
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Kumar
For the Respondents : J.C to A.G.
I.A.No. 1626 of 2014
14/26.03.2014 In the instant interlocutory application prayer has been made for listing
the case under appropriate heading after the writ petition was detagged from W.P.(PIL) No. 3594 of 2011vide order dated 14.6.2012 passed by learned Division Bench of this Court and where after it has not been listed.
Accordingly, let the matter appear in the month of May, 2014 as per its turn.
I.A. No. 1626 of 2014 stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
A. Mohanty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.6742 of 2011
Naresh Singh ....... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & others ........ Respondents
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sujit Narayan Prasad
For the Respondents : J.C. to A.A.G
I.A.No. 1774 of 2014
03/26.03.2014 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of
the writ application, by an order contained in letter no. 767 dated 20.3.2012 issued by the Managing Director of the Gumla Simdega Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., petitioner has been dismissed from service and it has been observed that he would only be entitled to subsistence allowance for the period of his suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. Therefore, since the order of dismissal is a consequent of the said departmental proceeding , the proposed amendments may be allowed otherwise it may lead to multiplicity of litigation.
Learned counsel for the respondent- Bank does not dispute that such an order of dismissal has been passed during the pendency of the writ application.
Therefore, in order to avoid the multiplicity of the proceeding, proposed amendments are allowed to be incorporated by filing an amended writ petition also bringing on record the relevant annexures. Copy of the same shall also be served upon the counsel for the respondents. Upon receipt of such amended writ petition, the respondents shall be at liberty to file their response, if so advised.
List this case after 6 weeks under the appropriate heading. I.A. No. 1774 of 2014 stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.7311 of 2011 Azimul Haque Ansari & ors. ....... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & others ........ Respondents
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Kumar
For the Respondents : J.C. to G.A.
I.A.No. 292 of 2014
07/26.03.2014 Learned counsel for the petitioner is not pressing the instant
interlocutory application.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 292 of 2014 stands rejected. I.A.No. 1782 of 2014 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proposed prayer as indicated in para 9 of the instant interlocutory application needs to be allowed as there is a anomaly position relating to reckoning of past service of the petitioners for the purpose of regularization.
In that view of the matter, since the proposed amendments are necessary for effective adjudication of the controversy, the same are allowed to be incorporated. Let the proposed amendments be brought on record by way of amended writ petition within a period of 2 weeks with a copy to the other side. The respondents are at liberty to respond to the amended prayer, thereafter within a period of 4 weeks.
I.A. No.1782 of 2014 stand disposed of.
List this case under appropriate heading.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
A. Mohanty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont.(Civil) No.1129 of 2012
Jugal Mahatha ....... Petitioner
Versus
Vijoy Kumar Singh & others ........ Opposite Parties
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Petitioner : Mr. Parwez Ahmad Khan
For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha
07/26.03.2014 Learned counsel for the respondent- BCCL has entered appearance
on behalf of the opposite parties. Therefore no steps are required for any service upon the opposite parties further. They have also filed the show cause stating that the order under offence has been complied.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that in respect of the specific direction passed by this Court for taking a decision in respect of non payment of salary for the period from October 1973 to March, 1984, the concerned Project Officer, Madhuban Coal Washery under Block II, BCCl, Dhanbad has taken a decision by passing a reasoned order on 15.6.2012 (Annexure-A to the show cause) as per which the petitioner is not entitled for salary for the said period as he had not worked at Madhuban Coal Washery under Block II.
In that view of the matter, the order under offence has been complied with. If the petitioner has any further grievance in relation to the said order, he is at liberty to agitate the same in appropriate forum.
The contempt petition is disposed of and proceedings are dropped.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
A. Mohanty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.2515 of 2012
Devendra Mishra ....... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & others ........ Respondents
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Petitioner : Mr. J.K.Pasari
For the Respondents : J.C. to G.P. IV
I.A.No. 4958 of 2013
11/26.03.2014 By way of instant interlocutory application petitioner has sought for
amendment in the prayer portion of the main writ application to include the relief relating to payment of salary for the period from October 2007 to March 2011claiming the same are outstanding. In the main writ application, petitioner has made a prayer for payment of post retirement dues stating that he has retired on 30.6.2012.
In that view of the matter, prayer made in the instant interlocutory application shall also be considered at the time of final disposal of the case.
Let the instant interlocutory application be kept on record.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(S) No.5508 of 2012 09/26.03.2014 Let Cont.(Civil) No. 77 of 2014 be listed along with instant writ petition as it is stated that it arises out of the very interim order dated 12.12.2012 staying the order of termination of the petitioner, which is sought to be vacated through I.A. No. 1790 of 2014.
Let the case be passed over for the day.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty W.P.(S) No.3279 of 2013 06/26.03.2014 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not intend to rely upon Annexure-1 in respect of which defect has been pointed out. Accordingly, the said defect is ignored.
However, he is permitted to remove the surviving defects as pointed out in the office note dated 15.3.2014 within a period of 2 weeks, failing which, this application shall stand rejected without further reference to the Bench. In that view of the matter, petitioner will be requiring to furnish typed copy of only Annexure-3.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
A. Mohanty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.4651 of 2013
Rohit Kumar Yadav ....... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ........ Respondents
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheela Prasad
For the Respondents : Mr. R.R. Mishra
I.A.No. 1628 of 2014
02/26.03.2014 The applicant herein seeks substitution in place of sole deceased
petitioner who is said to have died on 14.1.2014, claiming herself to be widow of the deceased petitioner.
Having regard to the aforesaid statement made in the instant interlocutory application, the applicant is permitted to be substituted in place of deceased petitioner for which necessary correction shall be carried out by the counsel for the petitioner- applicant in the array of parties in red ink during the course of the day.
I.A. No. 1628 of 2014 stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty