Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 1995 Page 3 of about 80 results (0.011 seconds)

May 10 1995 (HC)

Mohammed Ismail Vs. the State of Raj. and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-10-1995

Reported in : 1995(2)WLN491

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 3.10.1987, 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 sections 2j and 25 respectively of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (here in after 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 are 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 3 october, 1987 on daily wages of rs. 15/-per day which was later on increased to rs 20/-per day upto 28.2.1988 or till any other .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 26 1995 (HC)

Ram Sahai Sharma Vs. the State of Raj. and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-26-1995

Reported in : 1995(3)WLC563; 1995(2)WLN604

arun madan, j.1. the writ petition pertains to the relief claimed by the petitioner for grant of pension/family pension to the petitioner whose son late bal krishan sharma had died while in service.2. the facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that that late bal krishan sharma son of the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of munshi in public works department on 1.11.1973 and had completed 10 years of qualifying service satisfactorily as munshi on 31.10.1983 and had thus become entitled for confirmation on the post of munshi w.e.f. 31.10.1993. however, for reasons beyond control of the petitioner and due to inaction on the part of the authorities of respondent department the petitioner's son, deceased employee, was no confirmed in service during his life time and he died on 22.6.1985. subsequently the petitioner's son was confirmed on the post of munshi vide order, dated 20.12.1986 w.e.f. 31.10.1983 vide annexure 1. it has been further contended in the writ petition that since the son of the petitioner was not confirmed during his life time, he could not opt for pension and submit his option for pension. after confirmation in terms of the order vide annexure 1, as referred to above, the petitioner herein, being the father of the deceased employee, applied in proper performate for grant of pension to him on account of death of his late son and submitted the same before the executive engineer, p.w.d. dn. ii, bharatpur (respondent no. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 1995 (HC)

Mukesh Kumar Soni Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-02-1995

Reported in : 1995(1)WLN448

arun madan, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties. this writ petition has been filed under article 226 of the constitution of india in the matter of violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner under arts. 14, 16 and 311 of the constitution of india.2. the facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition, briefly stated, are that pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondent no. 1 59 posts of ayurved chikitsak' were advertised vide notification dated 15.9.1992 for the said posts. in compliance with the said advertisement the petitioner applied for the post of ayurved chikitsak in a prescribed form and submitted all relevant documents including his marksheet for having passed the examination of 'ayurvedacharya' as per column 6 of his application. the candidature of the petitioner was considered thoroagnly and the petitioner on being found eligible was issued appointment order for the post of ayurved chikitsak in the pay scale of rs. 2000-50-2300- 75-3200-100-3500 on urgent/temporary basis for a period of one year or till candidates regularly selected by the rajasthan public service commission are available in terms of appointment order, dated 7.3.1993 (annex.2) it is further contended that in pursuance of the appointment order, dated 7.10.1993 the petitioner joined his duty on 14.10.1993 at mandvi distt. udalur and successfully discharged his duties till 17.5.1994. during this period there was no complaint against the petitioner.3. subsequently in pursuance .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 1995 (HC)

Kailash Chand Verma Vs. Panchayat Samiti and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-18-1995

Reported in : (1998)IIILLJ423Raj; 1996(2)WLC649

orderarun madan, j. 1. the grievance of the petitioner, as unfolded by this writ petition, briefly stated, is that the petitioner was appointed as a daily rated employee in the famine relief department of panchayat samiti, kishanganj, on june 18, 1988 at the rate of rs. 20/- per day vide ex.1. it has been contended in the writ petition that the petitioner used to be paid rs. 600/- per month at the close of english calendar month i.e. at the first of every english month which clearly implied that he used to be paid for 30 days in a month without excluding sundays and holidays. it has been further contended that the petitioner has been regularly attending his duties and marking attendance in the attendance register/muster roll maintained in the office of the respondents. according to the petitioner he discharged his duties satisfactorily for more than a year in the industrial establishment of panchayat samiti, kishanganj in the cadre and category of lower division clerk (ldc). the services of the petitioner were dispensed with by the respondents vide letter dated february 8, 1990 (ex.3) on the charge of negligence and carelessness in the matter of maintaining dak ticket register. it has been further contended that before the petitioner furnished his explanation to the vikas adhikari his services were terminated/retrenched vide letter dated february 2, 1990, as aforesaid. it will be pertinent to refer to ex.4 which is letter dated february 2, 1990 in this connection, wherein it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 27 1995 (HC)

Rajeev Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-27-1995

Reported in : 1996(1)WLC216; 1995(2)WLN534

arun madan, j.1. heard the learned counsel for the parties. the question of law which has been raised in this writ petition is as to whether the cattle feed plant which is a unit, of rajasthan co-operative dairy federation ltd. and which is being run by the state government for the purpose of meeting out need of cattle feed falls within the definition of 'industry' as defined under section 2(j) of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the act')? the case of the petitioner in short is that he was appointed on 5.5.88 by the respondent no. 2 on the post of chemist and the petitioner joined his services with effect from 6.5.88 at nadbai with respondent no. 3 it has been contended in the writ petition that the petitioner worked on the said post continuously from 6.5.88 to 2.1.89 without any break and thus worked for more than 240 days. the salary of the petitioner for december, 1988 and 2 days of january, 1989 was still outstanding as on date of the filling of the writ petition in this court. on 2nd january, 1989 the services of the petitioner were terminated. it is the impugned order of termination dated 2nd january, 1989 which has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it tentamounts to retrenchment as per section 2(00) of the act and hence the workman is entitled for protection of mandatory provisions of chapter 5-a and 5-c of the act which includes section 25f. 25g. 25h and 25t of the act. it has been further contended in the writ .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 25 1995 (HC)

Virendra Kumar Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-25-1995

Reported in : 1995(3)WLC719; 1995(1)WLN580

arun madan, j.1. this writ petition has been filed under article 226 of the constitution of india in the matter of violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner under article 14,16, 21 and 31(d) of the constitution of india, wherein the petitioner has challenged the verbal order of retrenchment dated 1st march, 1989, whereby the services of the petitioner, who was appointed as a beldar on daily wage basis, were terminated by the respondents without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or even issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioner.2. the facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was appointed as beldar on daily-wage basis @ rs. 14/- per day, on 1-2-87 in the office of the respondents at bharatpur and he was under the charge of assistant engineer.pwd sub-division, nadbai, district bharatpur. during the period 1.2.87 till march, 1989 the petitioner was made to work with artificial breaks in service. it is contended by the petitioner that during the aforesaid period the petitioner had continuously discharged his duties as beldar for a period of 25 months. there was no complaint against the petitioner during the course of his employment till 1.3.89 when the services of the petitioner were terminated by an oral order passed by the respondents. it has been further contended in the writ petition that striking out the name of the workman from the juster roll of the management amounts to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 21 1995 (HC)

Kamal Singh Vs. State and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-21-1995

Reported in : 1995(2)WLC438; 1995(1)WLN592

arun madan, j.1. the short question which arises for consideration of this court in the present writ pettion is as to whether the fixation of cut off date i.e. 2nd september, 1972 occurring in the definition of the term 'deceased government servant' in rule 2(e) of the rajasthan recruitment of dependents of government servant dying while in service rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules') by which benefit of recruitment to the members of the family of deceased government servant while dying in service is limited only to the members of the family of the government servant dying on or after cut off date as referrred to above, i.e. 2nd september, 1972 ?.2. the brief facts giving rise to the filing of this writ pettion are that the late father of the petitioner was appointed on work charge basis by public health engineering department (for short 'phed') (respondent no. 3) but later on he was fixed in his regular pay scale. the petitioner's father died on duty on 14.7.1969 while the petitioner was a minor. the matter was represented through the mother of the petitioner to the concerned authortities so that the petitioner could suitably be given appointment under the rule of 1976. the representation of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the question regarding fixation of cut off date is not material for consideration of the authorities and no benefit of the same can be extended to the petitioner. the petitioner was however, taken in service as class iv .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 1995 (HC)

Roshan and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-09-1995

Reported in : 1996CriLJ2286

orderarun madan, j.1. this cr. misc. petition under section 482, cr. p.c. has been filed by the above-named petitioner in this court for quashing the order dated 20th july, 1995 passed by the learned addl. district and sessions judge, rajgarh, camp laxmangarh, district alwar, by which the revisional court has stayed the order of the learned executive magistrate, kathumer passed under section 145, cr. p.c. directing the attachment of the property in question.2. the facts giving rise to the filing of this misc. petition under section 482, cr. p.c. briefly stated, are that a complaint was lodged by the petitioners under section 145, cr. p.c. before the learned executive magistrate, kathumar, regarding khasra no. 1664 rakba 2 bigha 4 biswa, khasra no. 1700 rakba 1 bigha 5 biswa, khasra no. 1702 rakba 3 bigha 6 biswa and khasra no. 1703 rakba 2 bigha 6 biswa situated in village samuchi and that the petitioners are in peaceful possession of the land and is also cultivating the same. respondent no. 2 and his family members wanted to get forceable possession of the land from the petitioners and it is under these circumstances that a complaint was made by the petitioners before the learned executive magistrate, kathumar praying that respondent no. 2 be restrained from depriving the petitioners of their lawful possession. the learned executive magistrate called for the report from the local police and the concerned sho submitted the report to the executive magistrate. on the basis of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 1995 (HC)

Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Hari Singh

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-15-1995

Reported in : AIR1996Raj182

arun madan, j. 1. this civil second appeal under section 100, c.p.c., 1908 has been preferred to this court against the judgment and decree, dated 7th march, 1995 passed by addl. district judge no. 7, jaipur city, jaipur whereby the first appellate court partly allowed the appeal on the ground of default preferred by the defendant-appellant while maintaining the decree for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises on the grounds of nuisance and sub-letting.2. the facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are that a civil suit for eviction of the defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant') from the suit shop situated in old sabji mandi behind johari bazar, jaipur, was filed by the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter, referred to as the 'respondent'). it was alleged in the suit that the suit shop was rented out to the appellant at the rate of rs. 45/- per month and that it was an old tenancy. the plaintiff filed the said suit for eviction of the appellant on three grounds under section 13(1)(a), (d) and (e) of the rajasthan premises (control of rent and eviction) act, 1950 (for short as 'the act'), i.e., that the tenant had neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months, that the tenant had created nuisance or had done any act which is inconsistent with the properties for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the premises or which is likely to affect adversely the landlord's interest therein and that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 27 1995 (HC)

Satish Kumar Bhambani Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-27-1995

Reported in : (1997)IIILLJ442Raj; 1995(3)WLC751; 1995(1)WLN605

arun madan, j.1. heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the documents placed on the record.2. this case pertains to a dispute of the workman, who was initially appointed on the post of carpenter with effect from december 26, 1985 by installation officer, programme production centre, doordarshan kendra, jaipur (respondent no. 3). the selection of the petitioner was against a vacancy which had arisen following the name of the petitioner being sponsored from the employment exchange, jaipur. the contention of the petitioner is that notwithstanding that he was appointed as a daily-wager, he worked full-time at par with the regularly selected and permanent employees but his salary was not fixed in the regular pay-scale and instead the petitioner was paid rs. 35/- per day only and there was violation of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. it has further been conducted that the services of the petitioner stood terminated with effect from november 1, 1986 by an oral order passed by non- petitioner no. 3. no retrenchment compensation was paid to the petitioner and no notice was served upon him nor any salary was paid in lieu of notice as required by section 25f of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (for short 'the act'). it has further been contended that the petitioner, on the relevant date, had completed 240 days of his service for being treated as a permanent employee.3. against the oral order of termination dated november 1, 1986, the petitioner had raised .....

Tag this Judgment!


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