Madhya Pradesh Court May 1975 Judgments
Pannalal Tayal Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-1975
Reported in: AIR1976MP48
S.M.N. Raina, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff arising out of a suit pertaining to service matter regarding his seniority and fixation of pay,2. The plaintiff-appellant was appointed as a clerk on 14-10-1947 in the former State of Gwalior. He served in the Food Department of the former State of Madhya Bharat upto 31-3-54. On 1-4-54 he was retrenched from that department, taut was absorbed on the post of Upper Division Clerk in the Tahsil Office at Shiv-puri on 5-10-54 in the grade of Rs. 50-3-80. Thereafter, he was transferred to the Treasury Shivpuri and worked there as Upper Division Clerk upto August 1957. In the provisional integration list of employees of the Treasury of Madhya Bharat he was shown as a confirmed Treasury Accountant and his name appeared at serial No. 17 vide Ex. P-7. In the final gradation last (Ex. P-9) also the plaintiff was included in the gradation list of Accountants at serial No. 17. In the provisional list he was shown in the grade of Rs. 120-2...
Tag this Judgment!Loonkaran Parakh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-1975
Reported in: AIR1975MP217
Singh, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution raises a question as to the validity of the fee imposed by Bye-law 7 of the Building Permission (Fees, Composition Fee) Bye-laws, 1973, of the Municipal Corporation, Raipur.2. The petitioner has filed this petition as a guardian of his minor son. An application was made to the Corporation on behalf of the minor for permission to construct a building. As a prerequisite to the grant of permission, the petitioner was required to pay to the Corporation Rs. 225/- as fee payable under the bye-laws. The petitioner contends that the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, which is the relevant Statute, does net authorise the Corpora lion to charge any fee for grant of building permission, that the provisions under which the bye-laws purport to have been made do not refer to any fee and that the impost is a tax in the garb of fee. The petitioner prays that the bye-laws be quashed and that a direction be issued to the Corpor...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›