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.
Ganga Swa Sahayata Samooh, Gajwahi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.17275/2012 (Ganga Swa Sahyata Samooh versus State of M.P.& ors.) 29.10.2012 Heard Shri S.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be granted liberty to pursue the matter pending before the Collector in respect of the dispute regarding supply of mid-day meals in Primary School and Middle School, Gajwahi, Primary School and Middle School Keet and Parimary School Bartua in Jandpad Panchayat Jaisingh Nagar, which was initially awarded to the petitioner. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the matter, which he has already taken up before the Collector by representation dated 13.08.2012, and is pending before the Collector, Shahdol It goes without saying that in case the petitioner furnishes a copy of the order passed today alongwith a...
Padmakar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
1 W.P.No.17695/2012 Padmakar Mishra versus State of M.P.& ORS.29.10.2012 Heard Shri Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that though the temple in which the petitioner is a Pujari has been taken over by the Government and a stipend in that respect has also been fixed but the same is not being paid to the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the authorities paid the stipend to the petitioner but subsequently a show cause notice was issued to him by the Collector proposing to stop the same, however on a reply been filed by the petitioner, the Collector passed order dated 15.6.2011 asking the Tehsildar Hazur, District Rewa to pass orders in respect of payment of stipend to the petitioner in accordance with the Government instructions dated 31.8.1999 contained in para-4 therein, but inspite of the said directions...
Chainsingh Ankare Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.17941/2012 29.10.2012 Shri Piyush Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents on payment of P.F.within 7 days by registered A.D.Notices be made returnable in six weeks. In the meanwhile, in view of the proviso to paragraph 7 of the notification dated 28.07.2010, as an interim measure it is directed that the pay and allowances offered to the officers or employees of the transferor Bank shall not be reduced so as to make them less than the over all pay and allownances they would have drawn in the transferor Bank. However, it is clarified that interim order passed in this case shall be applicable to the present petitioners only and shall not be made applicable for the employees working in the Bank. List this case along with W.P.No.21064/2011. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...
Banshpati Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Banshpati Singh and Another versus State of MP and another. 29.10.2012. Shri Harish Agnihotri for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, GA, for the respondents. Petitioners are working in the respondents Department since 1982 and 1987 respectively and have filed this petition seeking regularization. Keeping in view the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi (3) and otheRs.(2006) 4 SCC 1.and the policy formulated by the State Government subsequent thereof, for considering the claim of employees for regularization, who have completed 20 years of service, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in accordance to the Scheme formulated as per the directives issued by the Supreme Court, in the case of Umadevi (supra) and decide the claim of the petitioners by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Petition stand...
Atul Kumar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.17574/12 (s) 29/10/12 Shri Ashish Kurmi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner was working as a 'Guruji'. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2006, he was suffering from certain heart ailment and, therefore, he could not attain duties. It seems that the petitioner continuously remained absent for the aforesaid reason from the year 2006 and when he approached the respondents after recovery, he was not permitted to join duties. It is not the case of the petitioner that since 2006, he has been representing and as no action is taken, he has filed this writ petition after a period of 6 years seeking reinstatement in service. Matter pertains to working and appointment of the petitioner to an Education Guarantee Scheme and the Collector of the district concerned is the competent authority who is empowered with the duties of the appellate authority in dealing with such matteRs.Representation filed by the petitio...
Smt. Saraswati Bai Bhumarkar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.17988/2012 29.10.2012 Smt. Saroj Dehariya, learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner was discontinued from the services, against which she preferred an Original Application before the Tribunal being O.A.No.4096/2001. The Tribunal passed an interim order in the said case directing the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner. However, it appears that the said order was not complied with by the respondents. The said Original Application came before this Court on transfer after abolition of the Tribunal and considering that since the petitioner was being paid the salary in terms of the direction issued by the Tribunal, this Court vide order dated 13.07.2006 finally disposed of the Writ Petition No.18574/2003. not the grievance of the petioner is that she has not been paid the salary for the period of about 15 months despite the order of the Tribunal against which she has made the representation continously. The order passed by this Court in the writ ...
Rajesh Singh Parihar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.17917/2012 29.10.2012 Shri G.S.Gaharwar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner claims grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioner 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 discu...
Kamlesh JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Kamlesh Jain versus State & ORS.W.P.No.17893/2012 29/10/2012 Shri O.P.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as a Circle Organizer in the office of Assistant Commissioner Adivasi Vikas, Sagar. Vide order dated 13.7.2012, he has been transferred from Sagar to District-Dindori. Challenge to the impugned order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that in District Sagar, against six sanctioned posts of Circle Organizer, petitioner is the only incumbent, who is working and five other posts are lying vacant and, therefore, if the petitioner is transferred, working in District-Sagar would be adversely effected. That apart, it is also pointed out that various other charges have been granted to the petitioner and, therefore, working in District-Sagar would be adversely effected. The grounds raised for challenging the order of transfer are not such on the basis of which, judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is permissible, no statutory rules or ...
Dharam Das Mishra Vs. Ganga Prasad Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
1 W.P.No.16663 o29. 10.2012 Shri Sanjeev Mishra, counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of order notice dated 4.5.12 Annex.P/1 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revenue Revision No.905-II/06 affirming the order dated 31.1.06 passed by the Commissioner, Rewa division in Revenue Appeal No.195/Appeal/2000-01 whereby allowing the appeal of the respondent, the order dated 17.7.01 Anex.P/11 passed by the SDO Mauganj in Revenue Appeal No.369-A-3/1999-2000, has been set aside whereby such SDO without permission from the superior authority has revived his earlier order dated 7.4.01 passed in the same appeal and affirmed the order of the Tehsildar which was earlier set aside vide order dated 7.4.01. In the couRs.of the argument, in view of the proviso of section 51 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code,1959 (for short `the Code') on asking the petitioner's counsel ...
Nemichand Sakarwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.17926/2012 29.10.2012 Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State on advance notice. Heard on the question of admission. 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 di...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »