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.
Khet Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Khet Singh versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.17318 16. 10.2012: Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State. Petitioner is working as Panchayat Secretary in Gram Panchayat Jhapan, Tahsil District Damoh and vide order dated 29.9.2012 he has been transferred to Gram Panchayat Bairagarh Janpad Panchayat Tendukheda. Petitioner claims to be more than 50% handicapped and, therefore, challenge is made to the order of transfer. Merely on the ground that handicap of the petitioner has not been considered and transfer is made contrary to transfer policy, which gives certain protection to a handicapped person, and taking note of the aforesaid ground of transfer it is thought appropriate to direct the competent authority to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period 4 weeks. Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed petitioner is permitted to work in his present place of posting...
Ashok Kumar Nigam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
ashok kumar vs., state W.P.No.17457/2012 16.10.2012 Shri Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Petitioner is working as Forest Ranger in Bijuri Forest Range, Anuppur, District Anuppur. Grievance of the petitioner is that vide order Annexure P/1 dated 22.3.2012 petitioner was posted as Range Assistant, Bijuri but after a period of 6 months respondent No.3 has issued the impugned order dated 4.10./2012 whereby charge is given to respondent No.5 and petitioner is directed to give charge to respondent No.5. Inter alia contending that petitioner is being shifted from the post of Forester to the post of Beat Guard and charge is given to respondent No.5 without any justification, interference is sought for in the matter. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the grievance of the petitioner is to be considered and a decision taken by respondent No.2. Keeping in view the ...
Madhya Pradesh Agrawal Mahasabha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
1 W.P.No.311/2011 M.P.Agrawal Mahasabha versus State of M.P.& Ors 16.10.2012 Shri Akash Choudhary learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Arvind Shrivastava learned counsel for the respondent no.8. The respondent no.8 has filed a return and has stated that subsequently, that is subsequent to the filing of the petition and issuance of interim order by this Court on 7.1.2011 staying operation of the impugned order dated 30.12.2010 passed by the Registrar, Firms and Societies, Bhopal, the elections of the Society concerned i.e.the M.P.Agrawal Mahasabha have already been held in March 2011 and, therefore, nothing further survives for adjudication in the present petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the elections of the Society concerned have already been held in the month of March 2011 without implementing the impugned order passed by the Registrar dated 30.12.2010 in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 7.1.2011. In view of the afore...
M.L. Kumhar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
M.L.Kumhar versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.17366 16. 10.2012: Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State. Having heard Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and taking note of earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.14023/2012(s) on 3.9.2012, it is directed that the representation filed by petitioner on 4.8.2012 and the recommendation made by the Dy. Director be taken note of and decision taken within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed status-quo with regard to working and posting of petitioner shall be maintained. The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid. Certified copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Ramavtar Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Ramavtar Patel versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.17288 16. 10.2012: Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate for respondent/State. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging his transfer. Earlier also petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.11457/2012(s) and on 7.8.2012 vide Annexure P-5 the said writ petition was disposed of. It was found by this Court after taking note of law laid down in various cases, as are referred to in order dated 7.8.2012, that on the grounds raised interference cannot be made by this Court. However, the petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation of petitioner. Petitioner is again before this Court interalia contending that his transfer is illegal, it is in violation of transfer policy and till date his representation has not been decided. On merits with regard to breach of transfer policy grounds raised have already been conside...
Dolly Smith Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Dolly Smith versus State & ORS.W.P.No.16968/2012 16/10/2012 Shri Maneesh Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned P.L.for the respondents/State. Petitioner is working as a Gramin Mahila Swasth Karyakarta in Sub-Health Center Patan, Tahsil Shyampur, District-Sihore and by the impugned order dated 13.7.2012 Annexure-P6, she has been transferred to another health Center in the same district in Tahsil Semli. It is stated by the petitioner that on the particular date, when the Respondent Nos.5 & 6 marked absent of the petitioner, she made a complaint against Respondent Nos.5 & 6 to the Women Commission and contending that Respondent Nos.5 & 6 have influenced the transfer, petitioner challenged the order of transfer. In support of the aforesaid contention, a complaint made by the petitioner to the State Women Commission is filed as Annexure-P5. Shri Dharmadhikari submits that merely because the petitioner has made a complaint that also against Respondent N...
Panchanan Giri Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
M.C.C. No.1174/12 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.23291/03 which has been dismissed for want of prosecution. There has been some delay in filing the application for restoration, I.A.No.11257/12 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.23291/03 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/-...
R.K. Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
R.K.Shrivastava versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.17364 16. 10.2012: Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State. Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the basis of caveat. Challenging order dated 29.9.2012 allowing representation filed by respondent No.3 and cancelling an earlier order of transfer, petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is the case of petitioner that only for the purpose of granting undue favour to respondent No.3 his representation is allowed and by cancelling his transfer, petitioner is being posted in his place, which is unsustainable. Merely on the ground that for granting undue favour to respondent No.3 petitioner is being transferred, this writ petition is filed. From the objection filed by respondent No.3 it is seen that in the matter of his transfer, he approached this Court in a writ petition and this Court on 25.6.2012 in W.P.No.9010...
Smt. Rashmi Saxena Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Smt. Rashmi Saxena versus State of M.P.& Anr. Writ Petition No.17426 16. 10.2012: Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate 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 claim similar benefit. Keeping in view the aforesaid grounds raised by the peti...
Phoolbhan Shah Dhurvey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Phoolbhan Shah Dhurvey versus State & ORS.W.P.No.17485/2012 16/10/2012 Shri Rajneesh Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working in the respondent's establishment since 1989 and claims regularization in service on the ground that he had worked for more than 12 years and he is entitled for regularization in accordance with the principles laid down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi (2006).SCC Page 1 and the circulars issued by the State Government in this regard. Keeping in view the grievance of the petitioner, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in accordance with the principles laid down in the case of Uma Devi (Supra) and the circulars issued by the State Government and decide the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
- ‹ Prev
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›
- Last »