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. Deepika Lal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
smt. deepika lal versus state W.P.No.16796/2012 8-10-2012 Shri Rajkumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as UDT/ Warden in Ashram Kanya Shiksha Parisar, District Chhindwara. Petitioner was suspended and the suspension has been revoked and vide order dated 7.9.2012 after revocation of suspension of the petitioner, petitioner is posted in a place separate from the place from where the petitioner was originally working at the time of suspension. Placing reliance on certain directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan and others versus Dr.R.K. Shastry and another - 2005(4) MPHT 352 it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that once the petitioner is suspended from a particular place on revocation of suspension petitioner is entitled to be posted at the same place and action of the respondents in transferring the petitioner is unsustai...
indra Lal Kol Vs. Maharshi Patanjali Sanskrit Sansthan,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.16721/2012 (Indira Lal Kol versus Maharshi Patanjali sank. Sansthan & ORS.08.10.2012 Heard Shri Rajendra Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the respondent authorities are not declaring the proper result of the petitioner and have not declared him pass in the paper of Sahityam-2, though he was present on that day and appeared in the examination. It is prayed that the respondent authorities be directed to examine the records as well as the documents pertaining to the petitioner's participation in the examination and declare the result of the petitioner. It is however apparent that the petitioner has directly approached this court without approaching the concerned authority. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner files a representation before the appropriate authority alongwith a co...
Bala Prasad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
MCC No.1089/2012 (Bala Prasad versus State of MP and otheRs.08.10.2012 Heard Shri Koushlesh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant on the question of admission. The applicant has filed this MCC for restoration of W.P.No.16326/11 which has been dismissed for want of prosecution on 16.08.2012 as inspite of repeated calls, no body appeared for the petitioner. From a perusal of the petition it is apparent that the writ petition was filed in the month of September, 2011 and since then it was listed once and the petitioner sought the adjournment. On the next date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner to prosecute the petition. From a further perusal of the petition it is apparent that the petitioner had filed the aforesaid writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents/police authorities to take action against the respondents No.5 and 6 for getting certain lands mutated in his name. Apparently, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the authorities under the pro...
Ram Kumar Laharpure Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16621/20108. 10.2012 Shri Jitendra Arya, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners 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 petitioners 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 writ petitioners...
Chhotu Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15689/20108. 10.2012 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents-State, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vishnu Mutiya & others versus State of M.P.& others [2006 (1) MPLJ 23 .as also in the case of Ram Naresh Pathak versus State of M.P.[W.P.No.13520/2006(S)].and the bunch of cases decided on 25.9.2006, the petitioner is entitled to 50% back wages of the period when he was not continued in the employment on account of making application of a circular and retiring the petitioner on completion of 30 years of service or attaining the age of 60 yeaRs.It is contended that the petitioner though is reinstated in service, such wages have not been paid to him. Considering the law laid down by this Court in the case of Vishnu Mutiya (supra).this writ petition...
Mahesh Prasad Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Mahesh Prasad Tiwari versus State of MP & OtheRs.08.10.2012. Shri Brijesh Choubey for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the respondents, on advance notice. Petitioner claims to be working as a daily wage employee in the respondents establishment since 1990, and has filed this petition seeking regularization in service. Keeping in view the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi (3) and otheRs.(2006) 4 SCC 1.and the policy formulated by the State Government subsequent thereof, for considering the claim of employees for regularization, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in accordance to the Scheme formulated as per the directives issued by the Supreme Court, in the case of Umadevi (supra) and decide the claim of the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Petitio...
Smt. Rajkumari Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
M.Cr.C.No.9000/2012 8/10/2012 Shri N.S.Ruprah with Shri Sitaram Shukla, Advocates for the applicants. Shri A.K.Shukla, GA for the respondent/State. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been released on ad-interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 25/07/2012. It is further submitted that nothing is reported against them as to the fact that they are not co-operating in further investigation and misused the liberty granted to them therefore, he prays for confirmation of the aforesaid order. Learned counsel for the State has formal objection. Since applicants have already been released on ad- interim anticipatory bail by this Court and there is no report that they misused the liberty granted to them, the order dated 25/07/12 is hereby made absolute till the final disposal of criminal case arises out of the crime No.173/12. Certified copy as per rules. (G.S.SOLANKI) Judge navin...
Smt. Anita Shukla Vs. Shri Mahadevji Mandir Regd. Public Trust, Bandhi ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
1 W.P.No.14014/2012 (I) 8.10.2012. Shri Amit Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner/ applicant has filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 9.7.2012 passed by 3rd Civil Judge, Class-II Jabalpur in Civil Original Suit No.77-A/2012 dismissing her application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC permitting her to join the aforesaid proceeding as defendant. It is noted that aforesaid suit was filed by the respondents No.1 and (i) to (iv) against the respondents No.(v) (vi) for perpetual injunction against demolition of some property of the temple. In the couRs.of the arguments in response of query of the Court regarding maintainability of application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, from the petitioner's counsel, on which instead to argue further seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file appropriate title suit on behalf of the petitioner before appropriate forum. Considering his prayer the pe...
Praveen Kumar Vyas Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16627/20108. 10.2012 Shri Amit Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State on advance copy. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by a decision rendered by the Indore Bench of this Court in W.P.No.5774/2009(S).Nathulal versus State of M.P.and otheRs.decided on 29.03.2010. This Court has considered various aspects and has reached to the conclusion that if an employee is promoted on the next higher post in which the pay scale remains the same as was available on the feeder post, he could not have been denied the benefit of the Kramonnati policy. In terms of such finding, this Court has categorically held that the benefit of second Kramonnati was also to be granted and the order could not be issued for cancellation of such a benefit of grant of second Kramonnati. It is further held by this Court that in case the benefit is denied, it would...
Raju Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.8323 / 2012 (Raju ..Vs..State of MP & otheRs.08-10-2012 Shri Shashank Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. G.A.for the State/respondents. Shri Navneet Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 17-8-2011 passed by the S.D.O., Ajaygarh, District Panna under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner has himself stated in the petition that the petitioner had filed a revision against the aforesaid order before the Sessions Judge, Panna which has been dismissed by order dated 23-1-2012 against which the petitioner had filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court which has also been dismissed by order dated 16-5-2012. However, it is stated that as the petitioner had been given liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law, therefore, the petitioner has file...
- ‹ Prev
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- Next ›
- Last »