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.

Ram Kumar Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Ram Kumar Soni vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Feb 22, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1054002

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
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Kumar Soni

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

writ petition no.2580/2013 22.02.2013 mr.dinesh upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. mr.rajesh tiwari, learned government advocate for the respondents. heard. in this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 28.1.2013, by which the petitioner has been relieved to join at community health centre palera. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a multi-purpose worker and was posted at sub-health centre, lakhaura. by the order dated 07.06.2011, petitioner was transferred to community health centre palera. the petitioner thereupon submitted a representation. thereupon on the competent authority directed not to relieve the petitioner. as a result of which, the petitioner continued to serve at sub-health centre, lakhaura. however, without deciding the representation submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order dated 28.1.2013 has been issued by which the petitioner is sought to be relieved. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that competent authority be directed to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner within a fixed time limit. on the other hand, learned government advocate fairly submits that suitable action shall be taken on the representation submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law. in view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide the representation expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, by a speaking order. it is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. till the representation submitted by the petitioner is decided, he shall be allowed to work at his present place of post i.e.sub-health centre, lakhaura. certified copy as per rules. (alok aradhe) judge rc.

Full Judgment

Writ Petition No.2580/2013 22.02.2013 Mr.Dinesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr.Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

Heard.

In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 28.1.2013, by which the petitioner has been relieved to join at Community Health Centre Palera.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a multi-purpose worker and was posted at Sub-Health Centre, Lakhaura.

By the order dated 07.06.2011, petitioner was transferred to Community Health Centre Palera.

The petitioner thereupon submitted a representation.

Thereupon on the Competent Authority directed not to relieve the petitioner.

As a result of which, the petitioner continued to serve at Sub-Health Centre, Lakhaura.

However, without deciding the representation submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order dated 28.1.2013 has been issued by which the petitioner is sought to be relieved.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Competent Authority be directed to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner within a fixed time limit.

On the other hand, learned Government Advocate fairly submits that suitable action shall be taken on the representation submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law.

In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to decide the representation expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, by a speaking order.

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

Till the representation submitted by the petitioner is decided, he shall be allowed to work at his present place of post i.e.Sub-Health Centre, Lakhaura.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial