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.
Smt. Munni Devi Barar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Smt. Munni Devi Barar versus State of MP and otheRs.16.10.2012. Shri S.D.Gupta for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as an ANM in Community Health Centre, Bijawar, District Chhatarpur. She has been transferred to Sub Health Centre, Saurai in the same District. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioners husband is also working in the same place and if the petitioner is transferred it will cause serious inconvenience to the family set up. That apart, pointing out various personal inconveniences due to education of her children and ailment of old aged parents, challenge is made to the order. The grounds raised by the petitioner in this writ petition for quashing the order of transfer are to be considered by the competent authority of the Department and a decision taken. That apart, a representation preferred by the petitioner to the competent authority is pending and ...
Mrityunjay Pratap Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Mrityunjay Pratap Singh versus State & ORS.W.P.No.17356/2012 16/10/2012 Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is a Assistant Development Extension Officer and has been transferred from Janpad Panchayat Waidhan District-Singrauli to Jaisinghnagar, District-Shahdol. It is stated that a local M.L.A.and a prominent person with public interest with regard to working has recommended for cancellation of transfer of the petitioner and, therefore, competent authority be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the recommendations made and a decision taken. Taking note of the aforesaid submissions made by the petitioner, the competent authority is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and decide it in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of four weeks. Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed, status-quo in the matter be maintained. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of. Certified Co...
Balvant Singh Vs. Jageshwar Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
W.P.No.341/2009 16.10.2012 Smt. Alka Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri D.P.Patel, learned counsel for the respondent. Although this matter is listed today for consideration of IA No.6650/09, respondent's application for vacating the exparte stay granted earlier but the petitioneRs.counsel seeks short adjournment for further preparation of the matter to make her submission in the matter. Respondent's counsel has seriously opposed the adjournment saying that on some earlier occasion the Coordinate Bench of this court has directed to list this matter for final hearing in the month of February 2010, vide order dated 9.12.2009. On perusing such order sheet, I have found that while disposing of the application of the respondent for vacating exparte stay such direction was given by the Coordinate Bench of this court and in such premises, the aforesaid second application, i.e.IA No.6650/09 for vacating exparte stay is not sustainable as laid down by the Apex Court in the matter o...
Ramakant Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Ramakant tiwari versus State W.P.No.17193/2012 16.10.2012 Shri Sanjay Ram Tamrakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Panel Lawyer for the State on advance notice. Petitioner claims to be working on a vacant post of Lab Assistant and is qualified to be regularized on the said post on the basis of his qualification. It is stated that he is working in the department since 1988. It is a case of the petitioner that as he has been working for more than 10 years he is entitled to be regularized in accordance to the policies and Circulars of the State Government. Considering the aforesaid contentions advanced by learned counsel and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & ORS.versus Uma Devi & ORS. (2006).SCC 1 and the circulars issued in pursuance to the same, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance to the policies formulated as indicated herein above and decide it within t...
C.P.Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
1 W.P No.13968/2011 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.13968/2011 PETITIONER : C. P. PANDEY Vs. RESPONDENTS : STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner : Shri K. C. Ghildiyal, Advocate. For respondent no.3 : Shri S. P. Tiwari, Advocate For respondent nos.4 & 5 : Shri Anshuman Singh, Advocate Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha. ORDER (16/10/2012) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the resolution of the respondent Municipal Corporation, Singrouli dated 27.8.2011 whereby it has been resolved that the petitioner, who was working on the post of Dy. Commissioner, shall not continue to do so on account of the fact that the post of Dy. Commissioner does not exist.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Director (Planning) in the Special Area Development Authority, Singrouli (h...
Himmat Singh Jaiswal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
M.C.C. No.1173/12 16/10/12 Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. This application has been filed for restoration of W.P.No.23742/03 which has been dismissed for want of prosecution. There has been some delay in filing the application for restoration, I.A.No.11254/12 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. The application is supported by affidavit of the counsel himself and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Accordingly, condoning the delay in filing the application for restoration, the restoration application itself is allowed. Finding the same to be bonafide, both the applications are allowed.W.P. No.23742/03 be restored to its original file. It be placed for orders before the appropriate Bench. With the aforesaid, application stands allowed and disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Ramjan Sheikh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
1 W.P.No.15991/12 (O).16.10.2012. Shri Ashish Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned GA for the respondents No.1 to 6. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ directing the authorities of the respondents not to issue transit passes in respect of the vehicle which carrying the overloaded Sand more than prescribed weight, as mentioned in the registration certificate of concerning vehicle. It is noted that in this regard on earlier occasion a W.P.No.16237/11, was filed by the present petitioner but the same was disposed of by the order dated 29.9.2011 (Ann. P.5) with a direction to the authorities of the respondent NO.5 Collector to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within two months. Subsequent to it in compliance of such order Collector has decided the matter vide order dated 1.12.2011 (Ann. P.7) and directed the concerning authori...
Smt. Arti Kaliwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
1 Writ Petition No.17519/2012 (s) 16/10/2012 : Shri Awadhesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.The petitioneRs.who are Prerak, Jan Shiksha Kendra, under Central Literacy Mission, have approached this Court vide this petition seeking direction for quashment of order dated 25-03-2009 and a direction to the respondents to continue petitioners as Prerak with back wages and with consequential benefits with permissible interest and a further direction to the respondents to absorb him on the post on which he is working. The issue as raised here in this petition was also subject matter of bunch of petitions being Writ Petitions No.590/11(s).14317/11(s).12477/09(s).17/10(s) and 17448/10(s).The petitions were heard and decided on 15-09-11 in the following terms :- Respondents are directed to take steps for continuing the petitioners and for ensuring their continuation under the new scheme after evaluating the qualification and other requirement and proceed to consider the cases of the p...
Komal Prasad Jharia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
komal prasad vs., state W.P.No.17228/2012 16.10.2012 Shri H.S.Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Petitioner is working as Peon in the office of Block Development Officer and by the impugned order dated 13.7.2012 he has been transferred to Pre Matrik Boys Hostel Dhalakhapa, Narayanganj, District Mandla. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the grounds of personal inconveniences of the petitioner on the ground that he is suffering from Asthama and if he is required to go 50 kms away his treatment would be adversely effected. On the representation the Assistant Commissioner, Mandla recommended for cancelling the transfer of the petitioner. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the competent authority is directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner and take a decision on the representation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. komal prasad vs., st...
Baldev Kumar Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
baldev kumar patel versus State W.P.No.16867/2012 16.10.2012 Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging the rejection of his candidature for participating in the process of selection for appointment on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak, petitioner has filed this writ petition. It has been held by this Court consistently in various cases that in the matter of appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak the provisions of Section 91 of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 and the M.P.Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules 1995 are applicable and therefore, petitioner is required to take recouRs.to the remedy available under the aforesaid provisions. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the remedy available as per the statutory provision of the scheme, this petition is disposed of. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Mrs.mishra...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »