Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 1995 Page 2 of about 80 results (0.009 seconds)

Feb 02 1995 (HC)

Jagat Prakash Roy Bhatnagar Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-02-1995

Reported in : 1995(3)WLC348; 1995(1)WLN441

arun madan, j.1. this writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india has been filed by the above named petitioner for violation of his fundamental rights under article 14, 16 & 21 of the constitution of india who is an old man of about 84 years and physically handicapped in the last span of his existence, a poor person with no help from anybody and passing the last days of his life in acute pain and agony for want of pension, since his basic means of livelihood have been taken away by the instrumentality of the state, viz, the department of industries, government of rajasthan, jaipur.2. the facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition, briefly stated are that the petitioner was appointed as a weaving instructor, panchayat samiti, masuda on 23.3.1956 in the erstwhile state, of ajmer which was merged into the state of rajasthan on 1.11.1956. he was allowed to continue on the same post by the department of industries in panchayat samiti, masuda. while in service he remained posted at various places and on reaching the age of superannuation, i.e., 55 years as then he retired from service w.e.f. 1.7.1967 but the notional period of 3 years' of service was allowed to be added, i.e., 58 years and thus his qualifying service for the purposes of pension is 14 years 7 months and 8 days. it is rather unfortunate that inspite of the petitioner having served the department of industries for over 14 years he was not confirmed and his services were not regularised by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 1995 (HC)

Tikko Bai Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-17-1995

Reported in : AIR1996Raj19; 1995(3)WLC525; 1995(1)WLN642

orderarun madan, j.1. the petitioner who is a poor and helpless widow has knocked the doors of justice by way of this writ petition under art. 226 of the constitution of india in the matter of displaced persons (compensation and rehabilitation) act, 1954 and the relevant provisions of rajasthan tenancyact, 1955 whereby the petitioner has challenged the impugned order, dated 1-9-1993 passed by the divisional commissioner, bikaner (respondent no. 1) directing resumption of the property/land which was duly allotted to the father-in-law of the petitioner as a displaced person from west pakistan at sriganganagar in lieu of the property left by the petitioner's father-in-law in west pakistan on partition of the country in 1947. the petitioner who was already displaced person has been displaced again having been rendered homeless by the instrumentality of the state viz. the district re-habilitation officer, sriganganagar (respondent no. 4) on resumption of the land in question which was earlier duly allotted in favour of the petitioner's father-in-law by the said respondent.2. the facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is a resident of chak 14 s tehsil srikaranpur, district sriganganagar and agriculturist by profession. by an order of the district rehabilitation officer (respondent no. 4) the late father-in-law of the petitioner, shri pedsingh was allotted a piece of land measuring 12 bighas 10 biswas as a claimant under the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 06 1995 (HC)

B.M. Raina Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-06-1995

Reported in : 1995(3)WLC471; 1995(2)WLN174

arun madan, j.1. this writ petition, under article 226 of the constitution of india and in the matter of rajasthan agriculture service rules, 1960 read with article 14 and 16 of the constitution of india, was field by the petitioner who retired from government service on 31st july, 1988 from the post of additional director, agriculture (extension) in the pay scale of joint director in terms of order dated 13th july, 1981 read with order dated 5.1.1987 annex-1 and 2 respectively. the facts, as briefly stated, are that the petitioner discharged his duties as additional director, agriculture (extension) right from 13.7.81 till the date of his retirement i.e. 31.7.88 and it is stated that he was discriminated by the department in the matter of fixation of pay-scale since the post of additional director, agriculture (extension) is a post higher to that of joint director, agriculture and the grievance of the petitioner is that notwithstanding the fact that he discharged his duties , on the post of additional director continuously for a long stretch of time from .13.7.81 to 31.7.88 as stated above, the petitioner was paid the salary of lower post i.e. of joint director by the respondents which has resulted in violation of the principles of 'equal pay for equal work' enshrined under article 39 of the constitution of india in as much as the petitioner has been discriminated by the respondents in violation of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of india.2. shri r.c. joshi, learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 26 1995 (HC)

Rameshwar Prasad Sharma Vs. Rajasthan State Text Book Board

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-26-1995

Reported in : 1996WLC(Raj)UC489; 1995(2)WLN581

arun madan, j.1. the petitioner who la an employed of the rajasthan state text book board, jaipur, has filed this writ petition in the matter of violation of his fundamental rights under articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of india read with rajasthan state text book board employees service, (discipline and conduct) rules, 1979.2. the facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent board i.e., the rajasthan state text book board (hereinafter referred to as the 'board'), on 8.1.1974 as lower division clerk on temporary basis for a period of three months. he was subsequently confirmed as l.d.c. w.e.f. 22.12.78. the petitioner received ad-hoc promotion on the post of u.d.c. w.e.f. 22.5.1979. subsequently the petitioner was confirmed on the post of u.d.c. prior to completion of one year's probationary period w.e.f. 1.4.1980. it has been further contended in the writ petition that the petitioner received ad-hoc promotion on the next promotional post of officer assistant with the respondent borad w.e.f. 25.12.1982. it has been contended in the writ petition that the length of service required for determining the eligibility for the post of u.d.c. as per the rules, was five years of service for which the petitioner became eligible w.e.f. 7.1.1979 but since the d.p.c. was not convened in time, petitioner was promoted on ad-hoc basis as u.d.c. on 22.5.1979 though his juniors were promoted on the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 1995 (HC)

Smt. Amina Vs. State of Raj. and 4 ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-30-1995

Reported in : 1995(1)WLN429

arun madan, j.1. this is a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india in the matter of violation of arts. 14,16 and 21 of the constitution of india and in the matter of payment of family pension to the petitioner, a widow of a late retired class iv employee, resident of tehsil jetaran, district pali, rajasthan, who has been subjected to most hostile treatment and denial of family pension opted by her on the death of her husband w.e.f. september, 1961.2. this case has a chequered histry if a poor helpless widow who has not been shown any mercy by the instrumentality of the state government (pension department) which has deprived her of the sanctioned family pension for the past about 30 years, in gross violation of right to life and liberty guaranteed- under article 21 of the constitution of india which includes the right to livelihood which cannot be deprived by instrumentality of the state as has happened in this case.3. the facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that late husband of the petitioner was a class iv employee as camel sawar in the office of respondent no. f, the tehsildar, jetaran district pali who retired from service on 2.9.1958 and died on 18.9.1961 and was paid pension by his department till 18.9.1961, the date on which he expired.4. subsequent to the death of her husband, the petitioner being the widow applied for family pension which upon verification of the necessary documents as asked for by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 1995 (HC)

Rajmal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-03-1995

Reported in : 1996ACJ1166; AIR1996Raj80

orderarun madan, j. 1. this order will dispose of the above application for compliance of order, dated 22-9-1989 passed by this court in s. b. civil writ petition no. 3967/1989 filed by the applicant-petitioner. this court while disposing of the writ petition allowed the same in terms of its order, dated 22-9-1989 with the direction to the state government for conducting thorough inquiry into the matter and the circumstances resulting in the death of the petitioner's wife smt. lalitabai while she was being operated for laproscopic tubectomy on 2nd april, 1989 at primary health centre, gangapurcity, district sawaimadhopur. this court had also directed vide the said order that a high level inquiry to be initiated into the matter so as to ascertain the cause of death of smt. lalitabai and to fix the responsibility for negligence, if any, on the concerned doctor. it was further directed that if the circumstances leading to the death of the petitioner's wife were accidental on account of carelessness and negligence on the part of the doctor then appropriate compensation shall be paid by the state government to the petitioner within two months from the said date.2. pursuant to the above directions of this court an inquiry was conducted into the matter by the enquiry committee constituted by the state government. the said enquirycommittee submitted its report to the state government on 15-7-1992. the conclusions as well as the recommendations of the said committee mentioned in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 1995 (HC)

Radhey Shyam and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-24-1995

Reported in : AIR1996Raj134; 1996(3)WLC757

orderarun madan, j.1. the above-named petitioners have filed this writ petition in the matter of interpretation of relevant provisions of the rajasthan urban improvement trust act, 1959 (for short uit act) and jaipur development authority act, 1982 (for short jda act) and in the matter of rajasthan housing board act, 1960 (for short rhb act).2. the facts giving rise to the filing of these writ petitions, briefly stated, are that the petitioners are khatedar tenants having helf share each in respect of agricultural land bearing khasra nos. 181 and 227 measuring 2 bighas 9 biswas in village jhalana doongar district jaipur. the petitioners have been in continuous cultivatory possession of the aforesaid land since the time of their ancestors and have also constructed their residential houses over the said land which are also used for agricultural activities and for keeping of the cattle and fodder etc.3. it has been contended in the writ petitions that a resolution was passed by u.i.t. jaipur on 1-1-1976 whereby the government of rajasthan sought to acquire the petitioners' aforesaid lands for the planned development of jaipur city. the resolution was followed by a notification published under section 52(2) of the u.i.t. act 1959 for determining compensation by agreement. it has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the compensation was determined subject to the following terms and conditions :--1. the compensation for barani land (unir-rigated) @ rs. 10,000/- per .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 1995 (HC)

Ghasi Khan Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-04-1995

Reported in : (1997)IIILLJ74Raj; 1996(1)WLC379; 1995(1)WLN588

arun madan, j. 1. the petitioner who is an ex-driver of the respondent corporation i.e. rajasthan state road transport corporation (for short 'rsrtc'), filed this writ petition before this court under article 226 of the constitution of india, in the matter of violation of his fundamental rights under articles 16 and 21 of the constitution of india and also in the matter of rajasthan state road transport corporation workers and work-shop employees standing orders, 1965.2. the facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was appointed as driver with the respondent corporation vide order dated january 9, 1976 (annex-1), in the year 1983, a mishap occurred resulting in head injury to the petitioner while performing official duties with the respondent- corporation, as a result of which the petitioner was hospitalised. consequently, on january 26, 1984, the petitioner had submitted an application to the divisional mechanical engineer, kota, praying therein that he may be relieved from duties as driver vide annex-2, on account of his failing health and he requested for being given lighter duties, since he was not able to discharge his duties as driver efficiently on account of accident.3. on january 26, 1984, the petitioner was charge-sheeted for his absence from duty w.e.f. january 26, 1984 following a departmental enquiry which was initiated vide order dated june 16, 1984 (annex-3). the petitioner was, however, exonerated of the charge as a result of the enquiry .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 10 1995 (HC)

Mohammad Ismail Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-10-1995

Reported in : (1997)IIILLJ349Raj; 1996(1)WLC202

arun madan, j. 1. this writ petition has been filed by the above-named petitioner in this court under article 226 of the constitution of india in the matter of alleged violation of articles 14, 16, 19, 21, 300a and 311 of the constitution of india and in the matter of relevant provisions of the industrial disputes act, 1947.2. the petitioner who is a project based employee of the respondent and was appointed as daily wager in the office of tehsildar, sikar (respondent no. 3) vide order, dated october 3, 1987, has filed this writ petition claiming the right of continuity in service on the ground that he has completed more than 240 days of service and since the office of tehsildar is an industry within the ambit of section 2-j and 25 respectively of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), and as such the petitioner could not be retrenched from service as the same has resulted in deprivation of his right to live and liberty.3. the facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated is that the petitioner is a resident of sikar and after passing his higher secondary examination in commerce in the year 1986 from sikar, enrolled in the office of district employment officer, sikar, he was appointed as daily wager as lower division clerk (for short 'ldc') in the office of tehsildar, sikar vide order dated october 3, 1987 on daily wages of rs. 15/- per day which was later on increased to rs. 20/- per day upto february 28, 1988 or till .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 1995 (HC)

Satish Kumar Porwa Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-22-1995

Reported in : (1996)ILLJ621Raj; 1995(3)WLC93; 1995(1)WLN584

arun madan, j.1. the petitioner who was appointed as l.d.c. on temporary basis in the office of director, gram vikas and panchayatraj department in panchayat samiti, atru on daily wages, had last served in the capacity of junior accountant in the said panchayat samiti. he has challenged the impugned order of termination, dated may 24, 1989 by way of this writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india on the ground that the impugned retrenchment of the petitioner from service could not be done without complying the mandatory provisions of section 25f of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the short question which arises for consideration of the court in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner who is a temporary appointee of the panchayat samiti and appointed for working in a particular project, can claim benefit of regularisation in service on completion of the project on the ground that he had completed 240 days of service as on the date termination order is passed?2. the facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was appointed as daily wager on the post of l.d.c. on june 22, 1988 vide annexure 1. this appointment of the petitioner was done by respondent no. 2 i.e., vikas adhikari, panchayat smaiti, atru district kota, against a confirmed vacancy. on march 24, ! 989 respondent no. 1, i.e., the director and special administration secretary, gramin vikas and .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //