Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing Radhey Shyam Dixit Son Of Late Raj Mangal ... vs The State Of U.P. Through Secretary ... on 1 May, 2006

State Of U.P. Through Secy. {Now ... vs Radhey Shyam Dixit on 14 November, 2019

"(i) That the censure entry dated 30th August, 1989 (Annexure-7) and the censure entry for the year 1985-86 (Anneuxre-11), together with adverse entry for the year 1990-91 (Annexure-18) be quashed being wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of the guidelines laid down by Government and the Sales Tax Department in particular, with consequential benefit of grant of Selection Grade of Rs. 1300-1900, with effect from the same date from which it was sanctioned to his juniors (Annexure-16)."
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Daya Shankar Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 13 September, 2019

Recovery from gratuity has been held to be impermissible in the judgment of this Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Dixit vs. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (5) ADJ 720 which decision in turn relies on the Supreme Court decision in the case of D.V. Kapoor vs. Union of India, reported in 1990 (4) SCC Pg. 314 and the decision subsequently reported in 1990 (Supplement) SCC Pg. 640 (F.R. Jesuratnam vs. Union of India and others.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - N Tiwari - Full Document

Radhey Shyam vs State Of U.P. on 3 July, 2024

4. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case. The applicant is aged about 65 years old person. He submits that the applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. He submits that there are three accused-applicant out of them, two persons, namely, Shivram died on 5.8.1990 and Premraj died on 10.2.2021. He further submits that during investigation, Investigating Officer found nothing against the applicant and submitted final report before the court below but the court below did not accept the final report and summoned the applicant vide its order dated 13.12.2002 and against the said order, the applicant moved a revision before the court below which was rejected on 10.3.2003. Thereafter, the applicant approached before this Court in Criminal Writ No. 1556 of 2003 (Prem Raj & Radhey Shyam Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) and co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.3.2003 stayed the further proceedings till the next date of listing, thereafter, on 10.7.2015 the said writ was dismissed for non prosecution. The applicant surrendered before the court below on 26.10.2023 and since then the applicant is in jail. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was not recorded before the Magistrate. Statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. only, in which, she has stated that Shivram had committed rape upon her and Premraj and Radhey Shyam had helped him. He further submits that as per medical report, the victim was aged about 18 years at the time of incident. There is no internal or external injury found on the body of the victim. He submits that no witnesses have been examined till date. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.10.2023 having no criminal history.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S K Yadav - Full Document

Ramadhar Pandey Son Of Shri Ram Kuber ... vs State Of U.P. Through Its Secretary ... on 24 October, 2007

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the aforesaid deduction is wholly illegal and unauthorised, inasmuch as he has not taken any loan and yet amount of Rs. 5815/- has been deducted from his gratuity illegally. He has also placed reliance on a Single Judge judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam Dixit v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2006 (5) A.D.J. 720.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Mahadeo Prasad Gupta vs State Of U.P. & Others on 18 January, 2010

Having perused the records and the affidavits and having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that gratuity cannot be withheld until and unless responsibility is fixed on a government servant in accordance rules. The counter affidavits do not dispute the fact that there is no disciplinary proceeding pending against the petitioner nor the same is under contemplation. In the absence of any such action proposed against the petitioner there is no occasion for the respondents to proceed to withhold the gratuity of the petitioner. Reference may be had to the decision of this Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Dixit Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (4) ALJ (NOC) 773 (ALL.).
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - A P Sahi - Full Document
1   2 Next