Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, C.J., RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL
Ramgulam Singh Thakur S/o Late Shri Gangu Singh Thakur – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary General Administration Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dismissal of appellant's claim for samman nidhi. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments against eligibility criteria for samman nidhi. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. state's defense of the rejection of appellant's claim. (Para 13 , 19) |
| 4. court's evaluation of the evidence and eligibility criteria. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. court's stance on the ultra vires argument. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 6. final dismissal of the writ appeal. (Para 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents.
2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.1046/2015, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed.
3. In the present writ appeal, the appellant has sought setting aside of the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPC No.1046/2015 and has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to release the Samman Nidhi to the petitioner from the same date on which it was extended to o
Eligibility for benefits under the Rules is determined by a constituted committee, and a party must directly challenge such decisions to seek judicial review.
The subsequent notification repealing the Niyam, 2008 was an attempt to nullify the earlier judgment and was not clarificatory. The State's decision-making process for repealing the Niyam, 2008 was f....
The rejection date of a claim is the effective date for benefits under the Samman Nidhi scheme, not subsequent orders.
Detainment under the Rajasthan MISA for political reasons entitles the individual to pension benefits, irrespective of unrelated criminal cases.
The court established that for bail applications under the UAP Act, the prosecution must provide reasonable grounds for believing the accusations are prima facie true, and that mere membership in a b....
The court may stay a conviction pending appeal if the applicant demonstrates strong chances of success and potential irreparable harm, particularly considering their public status.
The court established that involvement with a banned terrorist organization and the collection of levies for such groups constitutes serious offenses under the UA(P) Act, warranting denial of bail wh....
Bail – Being a member of banned organization is also an offence under UA(P) Act and bail can be declined.
Unexplained delays in addressing a detainee's representation for release render ongoing detention unconstitutional, affirming the necessity for prompt action by authorities.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
