Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ramesh Kumar Moolchandani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Ramesh Kumar Moolchandani vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Oct 01, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1049352

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramesh Kumar Moolchandani

Advocate Smt. Sudha Gautam

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

ramesh kumar moolchandani & ors.versus state of m.p.& anr. writ petition no.16560 ”1. 10.2012: smt. sudha gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners.shri s.s.bisen, learned government advocate for the state, on advance notice. the grievance of petitioners are that inspite of orders passed under similar circumstances in the case of an employee surendra kumar gupta, similar treatment is denied to the petitioners.petitioners claim grant of appointment on the post of lab assistant in accordance with the circulars and policy of the state government and brings to the notice of this court an order dated 14.10.2008 passed in w.p.no.19116/2003 in which initially in the case of one shri surendra kumar gupta, certain directions were issued by this court and subsequently in contempt petition no.1090/2009 certain orders were passed on 16.5.20012 and in pursuance thereto relief was granted to surendra kumar gupta, petitioners claim similar benefit. keeping in view the aforesaid grounds raised by the petitioners without entering into the controversy, respondents are directed to examine the case of petitioners in the light of action taken in the case of surendra kumar gupta and a speaking order be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. it is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim. it is exclusively for the competent authority to take note of the matter and pass an order in accordance to law indicating reasons. with the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. certified copy as per rules. (rajendra menon) judge ss/-

Full Judgment

Ramesh Kumar Moolchandani & ORS.versus State of M.P.& Anr.

Writ Petition No.16560 ”

1. 10.2012: Smt.

Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the State, on advance notice.

The grievance of petitioners are that inspite of orders passed under similar circumstances in the case of an employee Surendra Kumar Gupta, similar treatment is denied to the petitioneRs.Petitioners claim grant of appointment on the post of Lab Assistant in accordance with the circulars and policy of the State Government and brings to the notice of this Court an order dated 14.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.19116/2003 in which initially in the case of one Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta, certain directions were issued by this Court and subsequently in Contempt Petition No.1090/2009 certain orders were passed on 16.5.20012 and in pursuance thereto relief was granted to Surendra Kumar Gupta, petitioners claim similar benefit.

Keeping in view the aforesaid grounds raised by the petitioners without entering into the controversy, respondents are directed to examine the case of petitioners in the light of action taken in the case of Surendra Kumar Gupta and a speaking order be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim.

It is exclusively for the competent authority to take note of the matter and pass an order in accordance to law indicating reasons.

With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial