Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

436 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 6. The provisions of Section 475 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are itself clear that when the person who is subject to military, naval or air force law and is liable to be tried by the Court-martial, is brought before the Magistrate and charged with an offence, such Magistrate shall have regard to such rules, and shall in proper cases deliver him, together for the offence in which he is accused to the commanding officer of the nearest military, naval or air force station, as the case may be, for the purpose of being tried by a Court-martial. 7. Thus for sending a person for trial under the Court-martial, the framing of charge by the Magistrate is not necessary. The only statement of the offence committed by him is to be recorded by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the law on the subject correctly. Under the circumstances, I hereby quash the order impugned dated 23.2.2011, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Vth, Court No. 29, Lucknow and the direction is issued to the learned Magistrate to transfer the case to the concerned officer who is competent for trial of the case forthwith. 8. In the aforesaid terms, the petition is allowed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 22.04.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH,J. THE HON'BLE S.C. CHAURASIA,J. Service Bench No. - 1785 of 1997 Prahlad Lal Srivastava Versus State of U.P. and others Counsel for the Petitioner Sri P N Bajpai Counsel for the Respondent C S C ...Petitioner ...Respondent Constitution of India, Article 226- consequential benefits-Tribunal set-aside termination order-back wages not given as “ no work no pay” but other consequential benefits can not be denied-direction issued accordingly. Held: Para 6 & 7 Since the order of punishment has been set aside by the tribunal, the order of tribunal has attained finality to the extent the respondents are concerned. In view of above, we dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the respondents to provide all consequential benefits treating the petitioner's continuity in service except the back wages. (Delivered by Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The order of termination dated 17.2.1993 was set aside by the
1 All] Rama Shanker Shukla V. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Sitapur and others 437 impugned order dated 26.3.1996. However, back wages was not provided. 3. While assailing the impugned order, it has been submitted by the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner is entitled for back wages as well as all service benefit. 4. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for back wages on the principle of no work and no pay. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection with regard to petitioner's continuity in service and other service benefits. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has been reinstated in terms of tribunal's order. 5. So far as the back wages are concerned, we are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for payment of back wages. However, so far as other benefits are concerned, the petitioner has got right to claim the same. 6. Since the order of punishment has been set aside by the tribunal, the order of tribunal has attained finality to the extent the respondents are concerned. 7. In view of above, we dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the respondents to provide all consequential benefits treating the petitioner's continuity in service except the back wages. 8. Subject to above, the writ petition is finally disposed of. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 11.04.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA,J. Service Single No. 1887 of 2011 Rama Shanker Shukla ...Petitioner Versus Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Sitapur and others ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri R.K.Sharma Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Rakesh Kumar Tiwari Sri Rakesh Kumar Tiwari U. P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of services of Teacher) Rules, 1978.-Rule-14-Date of retirement teachers working in recognized institution-date of retirement shall be the date on which 62 th Date of Birth celebrated-meaning thereby the petitioner shall retire on 30.06.2011 as the date of birth is 01.07.49-friction of a day will be omitted-as the period of counting will start from midnight of the date of birth-62 years shall be the midnight of 30.06.2011-by impugned notice rightly made to retire -No illegality in impugned order. Held: Para 6 The section embodies that in computing the age of any person, the day on which he was born is to be included as a whole day and he must be deemed to have attained majority at the beginning of the eighteenth anniversary of that day." On applying the principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner whose date of birth is
Page 1 and 2:
1 All] Siya Ram V. District Judge (
Page 3 and 4: 1 All] Siya Ram V. District Judge (
Page 5 and 6: 1 All] Gopal Singh Visharad V. Jaho
Page 23 and 24: 1 All] Amanattullah and others V. A
Page 29 and 30: 1 All] Anis Ahmad @ Chand Babu V. S
Page 31 and 32: 1 All] Ram Ujagar and another V. Sm
Page 33 and 34: 1 All] Ram Ujagar and another V. Sm
Page 35 and 36: 1 All] Dian Nath Chaube V. Central
Page 37 and 38: 1 All] Dian Nath Chaube V. Central
Page 39 and 40: 1 All] Kulwant Singh V. State of U.
Page 45 and 46: 1 All] Ram Mohan Dayal V. State of
Page 47 and 48: 1 All] Ram Mohan Dayal V. State of
Page 49 and 50: 1 All] Jile Singh V. State of U.P.
Page 51 and 52: 1 All] Union of India and others V.
Page 53: 1 All] Union of India and others V.
Page 57 and 58: 1 All] Rama Shanker Shukla V. Zila
Page 59 and 60: 1 All] Ram Pheran Yadav V. Commissi
Page 61 and 62: 1 All Ghaziabad Development Authori
Page 63 and 64: 1 All Ghaziabad Development Authori
Page 65 and 66: 1 All Pankaj Kumar and others V. St
Page 73 and 74: 1 All Dev Sharan Yadav V. State of
Page 75 and 76: 1 All Abdul Aziz Ansari V. State of
Page 77 and 78: 1 All Abdul Aziz Ansari V. State of
Page 79 and 80: 1 All Shiv Om and others V. Distric
Page 81 and 82: 1 All V.V.P. Welfare Association V.
Page 83 and 84: 1 All V.V.P. Welfare Association V.
Page 85 and 86: 1 All Nagina and others V. State of
Page 87 and 88: 1 All Suredra Narain Singh @ Babu V
Page 93 and 94: 1 All Naushad Alam V. State of U.P.
Page 103 and 104: 1 All Harish Chandra V. U.P. Sahkar
Page 105 and 106:
1 All Harish Chandra V. U.P. Sahkar
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
1 All Vikas Singh and others V. Sta
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
show all

Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?