Allahabad High Court Skill Test Typing Practice Set, ARO Typing Passage Set - 6 & 7

Typing Practice Passage for Allahabad High Court, APS Skill Test, ARO Typing Skill Test:

 

Sample: 6

(2021)01ILR A1101

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CIVIL SIDE

DATED: LUCKNOW 18.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Service Single No. 1106 of 2021

 Shriprakash Upadhya                                                                                               ...Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P. & Anr.                                                                                                ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: B.R. Singh
Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Shubhra Kumar

Civil Law Prior to retirement charesheet was been served till retirement enquiry could not be  included recovery order passed after 9 months of retirement no specific provision recovery order illegal W.P. allowed. (E 7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Bhagirathi Jena Vs Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. & ors., (1999) 3 SCC 666
2.Chandra Prakash Verma Vs Chairman, U.P. Govt. Emp loyees Welfare Corpn. & [2018 (36) LCD

(Delivered by Hon’ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

1.      Heard Sri B.R. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice for opposite party no.1 has been accepted by the office of learned CSC.

2.      Sri Anur ag Vikram has filed Vakala tna ma on behalf of opposite party no.2, the same is taken on record.

3.      By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the punishment order dated 11.9.2020 (Annexure No.1), orders dated 13.10.20 20 and 23.12.2020 Annexu res No.2 & 3). By means of order dated 23.12.2020, recovery to the tune of Rs.50,12,631.59 has been directed. The petitioner ha s also assailed the order dated 8.7.2020 whereby opposite party no.2 has denied payment of due salary of the petitioner from January, 2014 to December, 201 9.

4.      The precise submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2019 after attaining the age of superannuation. Prior to his retirement, charge sheet dated 26.10.20 19 has been served upon the petitioner. Till retirement of the petitioner, enquiry could not be concluded. However, after nine months
from the retirement, the impugned order dated 11.9.20 20 has been issued whereby
recovery for recovery for an  amount of  Rs.36,31,735.25 has been directed by opposite party no. 2 from the retiral dues of the petitioner. Subsequent impugned orders dated 13.10.2020 and 23.13.10 have been issued for making recovery issued to the tune of Rs.50,12,631.59. 

5.       Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and others, (1999) 3 SCC 666, referring paras 6 & 7, which are as under:-

"6. It will be noticed from the abovesaid regulations that no specific provision was made for deducting any amount from the provident fund consequent to any misconduct determined in the departmental enquiry nor was any provision made for continuance of the departmental enquiry after superannuation.

 7. In view of the absence of such provision in the abovesaid regulations, it must be held that the Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of the appellant. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. Once the appellant had retired from service on 30-6-1995, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement."  570 Words

 

Sample: 7

(2020)1 AIR A1, (2020)1ILR SCC,(2020)1ILR, Manu A1

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

CIVIL SIDE

DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.12.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Civil Revision No. 523 of 2012
Om Prakash Lakhina                                                                                                     ...Revisionist

Versus

 

Administrator of Specified Undertaking of U.T. I. & Ors.                                    ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist: Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, Sri Ashish Kumar Singh
Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Sri Prabodh Gaur, Sri S.K. Rai

A. Code of civil Procedure, 1908 - Section115 -challenge to- rejection of suit under order 7 rule 11-suit can be dismissed if the same is barred by limitation from a bare reading of plaint-plaintiffs respondents had discovered the commission of fraud by the defendant revisionist prior to lodging FIR-date on which the cause of action arose, is misplaced and is not consonance with the provision of section 17 of Limitation Act. (Para 10 to 28)

Civil Revision allowed. (E-6)

 

 List of cases cited: -

1. Mahabir Kishore & Ors. Vs. St. of M. P. MANU/SC/0051/1990

2. Kamlesh Babu & ors. Vs. Lajpat Rai Sharma & Ors. 2008 (3) AWC 2903 (SC)

3. Raghwendra Saran Singh Vs. Ram Prashnna Singh MANU/SC/0367/2019

4. Satya Prakash Sharma Vs. Arif Khan & ors. MANU/UP/3074/2009

5. Panna Lal Jain Vs. Jain Bank of India Ltd. AIR 1938 Lahore 368 

 6. Manindra Land & Building Corporation Ltd. Vs. Bhutnath Banerjee & ors. AIR 1964 SC 1336

 

 (Delivered by Hon’ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Prabodh Gaur, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents. 

 

2. This revision has been filed by the defendant challenging the order dated 28.7.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Varanasi in Civil Suit No. 1007 of 2008
(Administrators of Specified Undertaking of Unit Trust of India and another Vs. Om Prakash Lakhina and others) whereby the issue no. 1 which was to the effect whether the suit being barred by limitation is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, was answered in the negative.

3. The aforesaid original suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent seeking relief, inter alia, of a direction to the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs jointly and severally an amount of Rs. 43,25,346/-
as particularly set out in Exhibit 'D' at the foot of the plaint along with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from 11.11.2015 till the date of filing of the suit.  400 Words