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. Sangita Choubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.16893/2012 10.10.2012 Shri Rameshwar P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Government Advocate for respondents. The only controveRs.involved in the writ petition is claim of consideration for promotion as is prescribed in the rules known as Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Adhyapak Samvarg (Recruitment and Condition of service) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules').It is contended that as per the Schedule IV of the aforesaid Rules Assistant Adhyapak are to be promoted on the post of Adhyapak on completion of requisite years of service. According to the petitioner he has completed the requisite years of services yet his claim has not been considered. Looking to the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.4 to ascertain the vacancies on the post of Adhyapak and to convene a DPC in terms of the Rules aforesaid expeditiously to consider the claim of petitioner for promotion on the post of Adhyapak. Let the a...
Smt.Meera Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Meera Ahirwar versus State & ORS.W.P.No.16733/2012 10/10/2012 Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as an Adhyapak in Government Middle School Dhawari under Janpad Panchayat Barigarh District-Chhatarpur. Petitioner has filed an application and sought for her absorption in the services of Nagar Panchayat, Barigarh. It is pointed out by Shri D.K.Tripathi that vide Annexure-P4, both Janpad Panchayat and Nagar Panchayat have given no objection certificate in the matter of absorption of the petitioner and not it is for the Collector and the Jila Panchayat to pass orders on the same. By bringing on record various orders passed by the Collector in the matter of granting interim protection to certain other employees in whose cases, the question of absorption was pending and, therefore, petitioner prays similar benefit. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat/ Respondent No.4 is directed to consider the grievance of the p...
Smt. Karuna Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.15632 o10. 10.12 Shri Dharmendra Soni, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, PL for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 14.8.12 Annex.P/1 passed by the Upper Collector, Panna whereby her license for selling the petrol and diesel under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Motor, Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil (License and Control) Order 1980, has been canceled. In the couRs.of the arguments on admission, in view of clause 16 of the aforesaid order of 1980 in which remedy of statutory appeal against the impugned order Annex.P/1 is available to the petitioner, on making certain query from the counsel, on which, instead to argue further he seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file the appeal against the impugned order under the aforesaid provision with further prayer for appropriate direction to the appellate author...
Santosh Kumar Sofni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.NO.17139/2012(S) 10-10-2012 Shri Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is working as Sub Engineer in Janpad Panchayat Tamia, District Chhindwara. By the impugned order dated 13-07-2012, the petitioner has been transferred to District Dindori. Even though various grounds are raised in the writ petition but during the couRs.of hearing Shri Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's daughter is studying in 2nd year (3rd Semester) of B.Com.CouRs.in Government Girls College, Chhindwara and her 3rd Semester examinations are to be held in the month of Oct. Nov.2012 and 4th examination in March 2012 and therefore, a prayer is that the petitioner be permitted to work at his present place of posting till March 2013. The aforesaid grounds raised by the petitioner and the prayer for permitting him to work upto March 2013 is to be considered and decided by the competent authority and this court can only direct the competent author...
Om Prakash Joshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16891/2012 10.10.2012 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents/State on advance copy. 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 petitioner 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 ...
Mandhir Prasad Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Mandhir Prasad Tiwari versus State & ORS.R.P.No.788/2012 10/10/2012 Shri Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as a Rural Agriculture Extension Officer and has been transferred. He filed a writ petition before this Court challenging his transfer. Initially, in W.P.No.11912/2012(s).a Bench of this Court found that the transfer is not illegal and no case for interference is made out. However, as the representation was pending, an observation was made and it was directed that the representation be decided. On the ground that the representation is not decided and he was permitted to work but as he was being relieved without decision on the representation, petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.15481/2012(s).This Court refused to interfere into the matter and while disposing of the writ petition, observed that the representation has been considered and rejected. Inter-alia contending that the representation has not been decided, petitioner is again befor...
Smt. Abhilasha Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Smt. Abhilasha Mishra versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.17033 10. 10.2012: Shri Abhishek Arjaria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondents/State. Challenging order passed by the Collector District Chhatarpur rejecting fiRs.appeal filed by the petitioner in the matter of appointment of Aanganwadi Worker, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Appointment in question has been done in the year 2010, as per policy of the State Government issued in this regard on 10.7.2007. In clause C-6 of the said policy it is contemplated that in the matter of appointment of Aanganwadi Worker an appeal would lie to the Collector and if any person is aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector further appeal would lie to the Commissioner. Petitioner should take recouRs.of remedy of filing second appeal before the Commissioner and a writ petition directly before this court without taking recouRs.of such remedy is not maintainable. Acc...
Awadh Kumar Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.A.No.1064/2012 Awadh Kumar Shrivastava State of M.P.& others 10.10.2012 Shri Rajendra Shrivastava, counsel for appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.A.G., for respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dated 3.9.2012 in W.P.No.13919/2012, by which the learned Single Judge directed respondents to consider the representation of appellant, but no interim protection was granted. It was submitted by the appellant that in identical matters - W.P.No.13801/2012, W.P.No.13790/2012 W.P.No.13807/2012 in respect of the similarly situated employees, namely Patwaris, against the order of transfer interim protection was granted by the Single Bench, but in the case of appellant such relief has not been granted. It is submitted that on the principle of parity appellant may be permitted to work at his present place of posting, where he was working before the transfer order or the relieving order was issued by the respondents. Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Dy.A.G., appearing for the respondents vehe...
Om Prakash Dixit Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15357/20110. 10.2012 Shri Vikram Johri, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents-State. It is stated by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that Hamdast notice along with the order- sheet dated 14.09.2012 was served on the respondents and the proof of the same is filed before this Court on 01.10.2012. Registry is directed to trace out the said document and place on record. Let learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents seek instructions and file response indicating the compliance of the order dated 14.09.2012 within a period of 15 days. List immediately after 15 days. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc...
Ravi Meena Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.16859/2012 (Ravi Meena and another versus State of MP and otheRs.10.10.2012 Heard Shri Devesh Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioneRs.who have entered into love marriage on their own free will, have filed this petition alleging that the respondents/police authorities and private respondents are unnecessarily harassing the petitioners by registering false cases against them, therefore, the police authorities be directed to grant protection to the petitioneRs.From a perusal of the documents filed along with the petition it is apparent that the petitioners have not made any complaint before the police authorities bringing to their notice any incident, threat, harassment or otherwise by any individual specifically respondent No.5. The petitioners have also not stated that on which date, by what means the respondents have ever threatened the petitioners and therefore, it is apparent that the petition has been filed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- Next ›
- Last »