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. Poona Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
M.C.C.No.1144/12 08.10.2012 Heard Shri K.B.Vishwakarma, learned counsel for applicant on the application for restoration of W.P.No.11530/08. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that as he was on his leg before another bench he could not, attend the matter when it was taken up for hearing which resulted in dismissal of the writ petition for want of prosecution. The application is supported by an affidavit filed by the counsel for the applicant and as the reasons stated therein appear to be bona fide, the application for restoration is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.08.2012 passed in W.P.No.11530/12 is recalled and the aforesaid writ petition is directed to be restored to its original number. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to pay P.F.in the writ petition within seven days for issuance of notice to the respondents informing restoration of the writ petition. M.C.C.stands allowed accordingly. A copy of this order be placed in the record of W.P.No.1...
Rajesh Thapak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Rajesh Thapak versus The State of MP and otheRs.08.10.2012. Shri Dinesh Upadhyaya for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner was working in the Census Department and feels aggrieved by his non-absorption in the department. Interalia contending that many persons working alongwith the petitioner have been absorbed and petitioners absorption has not been ordered, this writ petition has been filed. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the State, points out that petitioner was engaged in the year 2001 and the employees in whose cases orders have been passed were absorbed in the year 2005 and not after a period of more than six yeaRs.it is stated by Shri Tiwari that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. If the petitioner feels that persons like him have been regularized and similar benefit is denied to the petitioner, it is for the competent authority of the department to consider and take a decision. It is not for this C...
Ku.Apoorva Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
1...W.P.No.14473 of 2012 Ku. Apoorva Sharma State of M.P.& otheRs.08.10.2012 Shri Mukesh Mishra, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Swapnil Ganguli, learned Counsel for the State. At the out set learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controveRs.involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.P.6913 of 2012 dated 18.7.2012 [Madhuri Jha versus State of M.P.and others].and this petition may be disposed of in terms of the directions issued in Madhuri Jha. Prayer is not opposed by Shri Ganguli, learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has sought following reliefs :- 1. Hon. Court be pleased to issue same directions which have already been issued by Hon. Divisional Bench of this High Court in identical writ petition No.6913/12 by way passing the order dated 18.7.2012 (Ann. P/1) 2. This Hon. Court be pleased to direct the respondents to exempt and refund the tuition fees amount with interest which paid by the petitioner, previously.3....
P.K.Patharia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
P.K.Patharia versus State of MP and otheRs.08.10.2012. Shri S.B.Shrivastava for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Rural Agriculture Extension Officer and has been transferred from Hoshangabad to Rajgarh. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioner is paralytic and as he is suffering from serious ailments, his transfer contrary to the transfer policy is illegal. The grounds raised are infact petitioners personal inconveniences due to his ailment, which prevents him from carrying out the order of transfer and the aforesaid ground is to be considered by the competent authority of the department and an administrative decision taken with regard to transfer of the petitioner. On the grounds raised, judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is not permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the departmental remedies available, ...
Sudhakar Hatekar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.16689/2012 08.10.2012 Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent/State on advance notice. Heard on the question of admission. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is seeking the following relief:- (I) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare the petitioner entitled for fixation of his pay on promotion as Head Master, Middle School as per Rule 22-D of Fundamental Rule. The respondents be directed to refix the pay of the petitioner from the date of promotion as Head Master, Middle School in further to revise his pension. The respondents be also directed to pay the petitioner arrears of difference of pay and pension to the petitioner including interest @ 12% per annum. (ii) Any other relief or reliefs, order or ordeRs.direction or directions which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner. (iii) Cost of...
Dr. Brijendra Nath Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Dr.B.N. Sharma versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.16810 / 2012 (s) 8.10.2012: Shri Dileep Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents/State. It is the grievance of the petitioner that on the same set of allegation two charge sheets have been issued to the petitioner. Initially the charge sheet was issued on 21.2.2012 by the Commissioner, Health Services, Bhopal and not again charge sheet has been issued on 17.5.2012 by the Commissioner, Rewa Division. Accordingly contending that on the same set of allegations two charge sheets cannot be issued, petitioner has approached this Court and seek quashment of second charge sheet issued by the Commissioner, Rewa Division. If that be so, petitioner should approach to the Commissioner, Rewa Division to pass appropriate orders on the objection of the petitioner. It seems that petitioner has already objected in this regard to the Commissioner, Rewa Division who has issued the...
Sanjay Agnihotri Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Sanjay Agnihotri & ORS.versus State & ORS.W.P.No.16768/2012 08/10/2012 Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.S.Bisen, learned GA for the respondents/State. Claiming the benefit of certain directions issued on 5.4.2010 in W.P.No.4114/2010(s).petitioners have filed this writ petition and it is stated that claim of the petitioners be examined in accordance with the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 17.7.2007 in W.P.No.7854/2006(s) and benefits extended. Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel submits that claim of the petitioners is identical to the one already decided by this Court as indicated hereinabove and, therefore, similar benefits cannot be denied to the petitioneRs.Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate invites my attention to the observations made by the Division Bench in it's order passed on 17.7.2007 in W.P.No.7854/2006(s) i.e.Para-35 (h) and submits that as the Division Bench has restricted the benefits to be granted only to such candi...
Balram Singh Rathore Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15660/20108. 10.2012 Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.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 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...
Kishori Lal Maravi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Kishori Lal Maravi versus State & Anr. W.P.No.16965/2012 08/10/2012 Shri M.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned PL for the respondent/ State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as Assistant Director Fisheries, Khandwa and has been transferred from Khandwa to Barwani vide order dated 20th of July, 2012. Challenge to the impugned order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that it amounts to frequent transfer. Records indicate that the petitioner was sent on training to the Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Kolkata sometimes in the year 2011 and not after he has finished his training, he joined at Khandwa on 27.9.2012 and not he has been transferred. Prior to training in the year 2011, he was working in Khandwa. According to the respondents, transfer of the petitioner is a routine action and merely because the petitioner is not permitted to join at Khandwa, it does not mean that he cannot be transferred. Accordingly, contending t...
Amar Nath Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Amar Nath Singh versus State of MP and otheRs.08.10.2012. Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Senior Advocate, with Shri V.D.S.Chouhan for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Challenging the order-dated 25.9.2012 Annexure P/1, suspending the petitioner under Rule 9 of the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as CCA Rules).petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is stated by Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate, that petitioner is working as Assistant Commissioner in the Tribal Welfare Department and, he has been suspended without any just cause or reason, without taking note of the facts properly and without any justification. It is emphasized by Shri Rajesh Tiwari that initially a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide Annexure P/3, on 13.8.2012, and it was alleged in the show-cause notice that in the promotion exercise done in the department for the year in question, pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- Next ›
- Last »