Madhya Pradesh Court October 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
P.K. Shrivastava Vs. the Secretary M.P. Purva Khsestara, Vidhut Vitran ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.17410/2010 29.10.2012 Shri Alok Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for respondents. Learned counsel for respondents again prayed for some more time to file the return. Looking to the fact that respondents were granted opportunity to file the return, this Court as a last indulgence has granted time to file the return, vide order dated 24.8.2012. However, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity of two weeks is granted to the respondents to file the return, failing which the writ petition would be heard without the return of respondents. List immediately after two weeks. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj....
Mohammad Akram Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
1 W.P.No.17446/2012 29.10.2012 Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as a Rural Agriculture Extension Officer and is posted in the office of Deputy Director, Chhatarpur. Vide order dated 17.7.2012 Annexure P/4 petitioner is being posted to District Panna. Challenging his posting to District Panna, this writ petition has been filed and the only ground canvassed is to the extent that petitioner was initially allocated to the State of Chhatisgarh at the time of reorganization of the State. He filed a writ petition challenging the said allocation and the competent authority of the Government of India was directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. Representation of the petitioner has been considered and allowed by the competent authority of the Government of India and petitioner's allocation to the State of Chhatisgarh has been cancelled and not he is being retained ...
Ashwani Kumar Shukla Vs. Chief Information Commissioner Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.17911/2012 (Ashwani Kumar versus CIC & ors.) 29.10.2012 Heard Shri Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent No.1 to consider and decide the second appeal filed by the petitioner before the said authority on 16.03.2012, which is registered as case not A-0579/SIC/08-13/ REWA/2012. It is however apparent from a perusal of the petition that the petitioner after filing the appeal has neither filed any application for urgent hearing not he has approached the respondent No.1 for expeditious disposal of the appeal. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner does approach the respondent No.1 by filing the application for urgent hearing, the said authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law. To enable the respondent No.1 to do so, a copy of the ord...
Shri Nandkishore Shrivastava Vs. Naib Tahsildar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.10365 o29. 10.2012 Shri Wajeed Haidar, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to adjudicate his application filed under Sections 115 and 116 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code 1959, which was registered as Revenue Case No.35-A-6-A/2009-2010. Having heard the counsel, after perusing the record, this petition is disposed of by extending a liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application within 30 days in the Court of respondent No.1 for early disposal of the aforesaid proceeding and the Court of respondent No.1 is hereby directed that on filing such an application the same be considered with justice oriented approach and pursuant to it, such pending proceeding be concluded and adjudicated on its own merits within six months from the date of filing such an application unde...
Nidesh Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Nidesh Kumar Jain. versus State of M.P.& Anr. Writ Petition No.17912 29. 10.2012: Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State, on advance notice. The grievance of petitioner is that inspite of orders passed under similar circumstances in the case of an employee Surendra Kumar Gupta, similar treatment is denied to the petitioner. Petitioner claims 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, petitioner claims similar benefit. Keeping in view the aforesaid grounds raised by the petitioner ...
Prakash Kumar Rajak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.18044/2012 29.10.2012 Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, for respondents on advance copy. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by writ pet...
Ram Naresh Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Ram Naresh Singh versus State & ORS.W.P.No.17883/2012 29/10/2012 Shri Ratnesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable by the week commencing from 26th of November, 2012. Petitioner is already working in Gram Panchayat Kumharwara, there is no order of posting and transferring the petitioner. However, Respondent No.6 has been posted in Kumharwara by the impugned order Annexure-P1 dated 29.9.2012 and it is not known as to how Respondent No.6 can be posted at Kumharwara, when the said post is already held by the petitioner. Respondents to show cause as to how, this has happened. Let reply in this regard be filed by the next date. Till the next date, petitioner shall be permitted to work in Gram Panchayat, Kumharwara and shall not be relieved. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
V.K.Bharadwaj Vs. State of Mp
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
WRIT PETITION No.24159/20029. 10.2012 Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents No.1 and 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was superseded in the matter of promotion on the post of Assistant District Excise Officer when the cases of persons like respondent No.4 were considered along with the petitioner only because of an average grading in his confidential report of the concerning period. It is contended that similarly situated person, who too was superseded, came before the Tribunal by way of filing O.A.No.234/1999. The said O.A.filed by Ram Baboo Sharma was decided on 28.08.1999 and the Tribunal has categorically held that only because of such average entry in the ACR, he should not have been debarred from promotion. A review D.P.C.was directed. It was further held that if such an ACR was coming in the way of the said person for promotion, the same was required to be communicated to him bu...
Habiburrahman Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
WRIT PETITION No.17477/20129. 10.2012 Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents, on advance copy. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the controveRs.involved in the petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Gopal Chawla and others versus State of M.P.And others [2012 (2) MPLJ 605 ., wherein only this much was directed that the respondents are directed to examine the requirement of refixation of honorarium in the present days of price hike. It is contended that a writ petition was earlier filed by the said person which was decided and subsequently the order passed in the said writ petition was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court as also in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, though the writ petition filed by Gopal Chawla and others (supra) subsequently was decide...
Dinesh Prasad Shukjla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Writ Petition No.18057/2012 29/10/2012 Shri Rajkumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioner is also similarly placed person that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioner is also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioner has prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions m...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »