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.
Sonu Lal Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Writ Petition No.16840/2012 10/10/2012 Shri Aniruddh Pandey, 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 ...
Smt. Ranjna Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.NO.5125/2009(S) 10-10-2012 Smt. Smita Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri Pushpendra Kaurav, learned counsel for respondent no.3. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Ramnath Ashram Shala, run by the respondent no.3 in the year 1992. The petitioner is said to have taken charge in the year 1994 and documents Annexures P-2 and P-3 have been filed in support thereof. According to the petitioner alongwith her, about 7 other persons were appointed as Assistant TeacheRs.While the petitioner was so working, all of a sudden vide order Annexure P-4 dated 15-05-2006, services of the petitioner were terminated . The petitioner challenged the said termination by filing a petition before this court being W.P.No.8295/2006(S) and vide order Annexure P-5 dated 17-04-2008, the writ petition wad disposed of directing the Collector to look into the matter and decide the claim of the petitioner. The claim...
Smt. Shakuntala Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16915/2012 10.10.2012 Shri Rajendra 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 by ...
Mohan Singh Mehar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.15760/2012 10.10.2012 Shri Shakti K. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. Heard on the question of admission. It is contended in the writ petition that the dispute is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Dwarkesh versus State of M.P and another, [2004 (1) MPLJ 261 .and other analogous matters in W.P.No.2354/2003, W.P.No.2880/2003 (O.A.No.1309 and 2022 of 2002 decided on 30.8.2003) by Indore Bench of this Court and in the case of Ku.Neena Dwivedi and another versus State of M.P.and otheRs.2004(2) MPHT 221 Also reliance is placed on the order passed in the case of Shashi Bhusan Dwivedi versus State of M.P and others (W.P.No.6932/2006(s) decided by this Court on 15/05/2006. It is further contended that after the decision rendered in the aforesaid cases certain instructions were issued by the State Government. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court has further disposed of certain writ peti...
Bharatlal Gajbhiye Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
bharatlal gaibhiye versus state W.P.No.17272/2012 10-10-2012 Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner is posted as an Assistant Revenue Inspector ( Moharir) Nagar Parishad, Barghat. Vide order dated 14.7.2012 petitioner was transferred from Barghat, District Seoni to Nagar Palika Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur. Inter alia contending that the designation of the petitioner is shown as Assistant Grade III in the transfer order whereas, he is an Assistant Revenue Inspector and the transfer is not correct, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.11134/2012. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 27.7.2012 directing the competent authority to look into the matter. The competent authority has considered the same and not issued a corrigendum correcting the designation of the petitioner and therefore, petitioner is again before this Court. It is pointed out that in the district of Nar...
Ram Sajeevan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Writ Petition No.16754/2012 10/10/2012 Shri Amit Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. Stating that the petitioners are also similarly placed persons 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 petitioners are 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 petitioners have 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 circular dated 21/03/1983 19/4/1999, 02/11/2001 and ...
N.B.Sharma Vs. Dr. Pukhraj Maru
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
1 Conc No.335/2011 N.B.Sharma Dr.Pukhraj Maru & another 10.10.2012 Petitioner alongwith Shri Hemant Shrivastava, Counsel is present. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Dy.A.G.for respondents. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach an appropriate forum for redressal of the grievance that the petitioner is entitled for the pay-scale and other emoluments at par with the District Judge with effect from 1.1.1996. As there is no adjudication either by the writ Court or writ appellate Court, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition with aforesaid liberty. Shri Kaurav, learned Dy.A.G.has no objection, hence prayer of petitioner is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw this contempt petition with liberty as prayed. No order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge C....
Vijay Bhan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.16973/12 10.10.2012 Shri A. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State on advance notice. Ku. Renu Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent no. 5. Challenging the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Budhar, Distt. Shahdol as contained in Annexure P6 dated 14/09/12 directing the petitioner a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat to hand over the charge of Secretary of the Gram Panchayat to respondent no. 5, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Even though, various grounds are raised in this writ petition. Facts that have come on record indicate that the impugned order Annexure P6 goes to show that certain revision petitions are pending in the Court of Commissioner, Shahdol Division and due to certain interim orders passed vid...
Ramnaresh Vs. Shri Ramanuj Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Review Petition No.614/2012 10.10.2012 Shri Umesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard on the question of admission. This petition has been filed for review of judgment dated 18.7.2012 passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.203/2000. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners submitted that respondent No.2 had expired on 31.3.2004. However, the aforesaid fact could not be brought to the notice of this Court at the time when the appeal was decided. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that on account of death of the respondent No.2, the appeal had abated as a whole and therefore, the judgment dated 18.7.2012 deserves to be recalled. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Budhram and Others versus Bansi and OtheRs.2010 SAR (civil) 705 and Jaladi Suguna (deceased) Through LRs.versus Satya Sai Central Trust and OtheRs.(2008) 8 SCC 52.I have con...
Y.S.Baghel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
y.s.baghel versus state W.P.No.13483/2012 10.12.2012: Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working in the Forest Department and is holding the post of Forest Ranger and at the relevant time when this writ petition was filed, he was Forest Extension Officer at Machana in Circle Betul. By the impugned order dated 9.2.2012 petitioner has been transferred to a working plan area and contending that petitioner has already undergone his posting in the working plan area and is to retire within 11 months, this writ petition has been filed and it is the case of the petitioner that in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of State of M.P.versus Sudheer Singh & Others - W.A.No.1320/2010 posting of the petitioner in the working plan area is unsustainable. Even though notices were issued and respondents have not filed any reply but on a perusal of the order passed by this Court in the case of Su...
- ‹ Prev
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- Next ›
- Last »