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.
Dr. Ravindra Tathodi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
W.P.No.17846/2012 31.10.2012 Shri V.D.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The writ petition is admitted for final hearing. Issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents on payment of Process Fee within seven days by registered A.D.The notices be made returnable in six weeks. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that order dated 7.7.2009 was issued pursuance to the amendment in the M.P.Public Health and Family Welfare Gazetted Service Recruitment Rules, 2007, which came into force on the publication in the M.P.Gazette Part-IV (Ga) dated 4.1.2008. It is further contended that not the said benefit is being withdrawn by the impugned order dated 30.5.2012 (Annx.P/1).Once the benefit is extended pursuance to the amendment in the Rules, the same cannot be withdrawn without withdrawing the amendment in the Rules. Considering the aforesaid, the operation of impugned orderr dated 30.5.2012 (Annx.P/1) shall remain stayed till...
Smt.Reva Bai Kori Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15771/20131. 10.2012 Shri M.R.Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned 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 mentioned in the cir...
Rajendra Kumar Dahiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
W.P.No.18310/12 (s) 31/10/12 Shri P.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Keeping in view the order dated 10/10/12 passed by this Court in W.P.No.17174/12 with regard to transfer and posting of respondent No.5 in place of the petitioner, it is directed that the competent authority shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.17174/12 on 10/10/12. Till the aforesaid action is not taken, status quo in the matter as is existing shall be maintained. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.C.C. as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Vivek Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Vivek Gupta versus State & ORS.W.P.No.18334/2012 31/10/2012 Shri Brian D'Silva, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Vrushal Bhide, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as a Tahsildar in District-Singrauli. Vide order dated 12.7.2012 and 19.10.2012, petitioner has been transferred and relieved for posting from Singrauli to Rewa. Inter-alia contending that petitioner has been granted certain land acquisition cases, due to which the Collector has recommended for retaining the petitioner from Singrauli and further contending that petitioner has been appointed as a Nodal Officer in carrying out certain election duty and in view of the circular Annexure-P8, petitioner should not be transferred. That apart, it is pointed out that the petitioner's son is studying in Singrauli and, therefore, he be permitted to work till the conclusion of the current session, as transfer in the mid session would cause inconvenience to the petitioner. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court ...
Siddharth Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Department of R ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
W.P.No.18319/12 (s) 31/10/12 Shri Siddharth Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner was a candidate who had appeared in the process of selection for the post of 'Patwari'. Petitioner sought appointment in a quota reserved for physically handicapped person and submitted the Medical Disability Certificate showing him to be suffering from Congenital Incordinated Speech. However, the Collector vide order dated 10/07/12 directed that petitioner's disability be examined by the Medical Board and a report submitted. Challenging this order Annexure P-1 dated 10/07/12, petitioner came to this Court in W.P.No.11097/12 and on 30 th July, 2012 vide order Annexure P-7, a Bench of this Court found that as the petitioner's case is only referred to a Medical Board for examination for finding out his current status of disability, no indulgence was called for. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the departmental...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kripashankar Soni
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Writ Petition No.8645/2010 31/10/2012 Shri Jaideep Singh, Deputy Government Advocate for the petitioner-State. Shri Manot Chandurkar, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Heard on admission. This petition is directed against an award dated 04/04/2009 passed in case No.09/2008 ID Act Ref., by the Labour Court, Sagar, by which a reference made by Deputy Labour Commissioner, Indore, was decided in favour of the respondent No.1. The Labour Court recorded the evidence and found that the respondent was retrenched by the petitioners herein without following the provisions as contained under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court also considered that respondent was engaged by the petitioner vide Annexure P-1 and he had worked more than 240 days in the department. It is settled law that retrenchment could have been made only after following the provisions under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was not followed by the petitioner. The Labour Court found that ...
Jhalkan Singh Vs. Shri J.N. Kansotia
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Con.C.No.1749/12 31/10/12 Shri Sachin Sisodia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State on advance notice. From the material available on record, it is seen that the order compliance of which is said to have been not made was passed on 28/06/04 in W.P.No.14014/03 that is more than 8 years back and even the representation submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure C-2 on 3/09/04 does not clearly indicate as to when and to whom it was served. The position would have been changed during the aforesaid period of 8 years and not after a period of 8 yeaRs.it is not appropriate to initiate any action for contempt, instead, liberty is granted to the petitioner to represent to the competent authority afresh and in case, any right accrues to the petitioner by virtue of the order passed on 28/06/04 in W.P.No.14014/03, the competent authority may look into the matter and proceed in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, the a...
Smt. Lata Netam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
smt. lata netam versus state 1 W.P.No.18024/2012 31.10.2012 Smt. Gulab K. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev K. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Petitioner is working as a Supervisor, Women and Child Development, Project Sahpura. By the impugned order dated 13.7.2012 she has been transferred from Sahpura, District Jabalpur to Bohriband District Katni and challenge is made to the order of transfer mainly on the ground that petitioner's husband is also a Government servant. He is working in the Directorate, Geology and Mining Regional Officer, Jabalpur as a Chief Analyst and he cannot be transferred to any other place in the State of M.P.and therefore transfer of the petitioner is unsustainable. Shri Sanjeev K. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer submits that petitioner holds a transferable post and merely on the ground that husband and wife are not posted together that does not mean that petitioner cannot be transferred. Shri Sanjeev K. Singh, learned counse...
Tej Singh Bradia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
W.P.No.18274/12 (s) 31/10/12 Shri Pranay Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner who is working as an Asstt. Grade-II in the Govt. Higher Secondary School Sahajpur, Distt. Sagar has filed this writ petition challenging his transfer to Kesli. Earlier, petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.11985/12 (s) and vide order dated 9/08/12 Annexure P-3, a Bench of this Court found that the transfer in question is not passed in violation to any statutory provision not does it suffers from the vices of malafides. Accordingly, this Court did not interfere into the matter, instead, directed the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner and pass a speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of its receipt. The representation is considered and rejected vide order Annexure P-4 dated 24/08/12 and, therefore, petitioner is again before this Court. As already indicated in the earlier o...
Bala Prasad Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
1 W.P.No.12619/2011 Bala Prasad Shah & ORS.versus Municipal Corporation & ORS.31.10.2012 Shri N.S.Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.P.Tiwari learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Shri Arvind Pathak learned counsel for the intervenor. The learned counsel for the petitioneRs.after arguing at length on admission, submits that the petitioners are in occupation of the land on an assurance given by the erstwhile Special Area Development Authority which has subsequently been taken over by the Municipal Corporation, Singrauli to the effect that the petitioners would be allotted plots of 40 ft. x 60 ft. each in lieu of acquisition of their lands in 1984 and were permitted to occupy the land on which they have constructed their houses till such decision is taken. It is submitted that the respondent Corporation has not issued a show cause notice to the petitioners proposing to remove the petitioneRs.houses in question by treating them as encroachers as no allotment has been ma...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »