Ashok Kumar Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Ashok Kumar Tripathi vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Mar 21, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1053631

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1053631
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Mar 21, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ashok Kumar Tripathi

Advocate Shri. Sanjoy Roy

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

w.p.no.21881/2012 21/3/2013 shri sanjoy roy, learned counsel for the petitioners.shri s.m.lal, learned panel lawyer for the state. petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking grant of two advance increments in accordance with the provisions of fundamental rule 22-d. a division bench of this court in w.p.no.1104/01 state of m.p.versus dayaram patidar decided on 4/10/02 had granted benefit to similarly situated employees and following the same in w.p.(s) no.1568/04 , orders have been passed to decide the claim of the petitioner in accordance with the law laid down in the case of dayaram patidar (supra) . keeping in view the aforesaid, respondents are directed to decide the claim of the petitioners also in accordance with the principles laid down in the case of dayaram patidar (supra) and confer the benefit to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. needless to emphasize, that in case, respondents find that petitioners are not entitled for the said benefit, it shall be incumbent upon the respondents to record reasons for the same and communicate it to the petitioners.petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid.c.c. as per rules. (rajendra menon) judge mrs.mishra

Full Judgment

W.P.No.21881/2012 21/3/2013 Shri Sanjoy Roy, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.

Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking grant of two advance increments in accordance with the provisions of fundamental rule 22-D.

A Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.1104/01 State of M.P.versus Dayaram Patidar decided on 4/10/02 had granted benefit to similarly situated employees and following the same in W.P.(s) No.1568/04 , orders have been passed to decide the claim of the petitioner in accordance with the law laid down in the case of Dayaram Patidar (supra) .

Keeping in view the aforesaid, respondents are directed to decide the claim of the petitioners also in accordance with the principles laid down in the case of Dayaram Patidar (supra) and confer the benefit to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Needless to emphasize, that in case, respondents find that petitioners are not entitled for the said benefit, it shall be incumbent upon the respondents to record reasons for the same and communicate it to the petitioneRs.Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid.C.C.

as per rules.

(Rajendra Menon) Judge mrs.mishra

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Ashok Kumar Tripathi vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education