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. Rampyari Napit Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Smt. Rampyari Napit 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. Petition...
Bhaiya Lal Parsai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Writ Petition No.16734/2012 08/10/2012 Shri Amit Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer, 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...
M.K. Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
M.K.Gupta versus State & ORS.W.P.No.16995/2012 08/10/2012 Shri R.P.Agrawal, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned GA for the respondents/State. Shri Gorav Tiwari, learned counsel appears for Respondent No.4. Petitioner is working as an Inspector, Weights and Measures, Raisen and by the impugned order dated 27.9.2012, petitioner has been transferred from Raisen to Narsinghpur. It is the case of the petitioner that an executed order of transfer has been cancelled vide Annexure-P12 dated 27.9.2012 and only to grant adjustment to Respondent No.4, petitioner's transfer is being annulled and, therefore, it is stated that the action impugned for granting adjustment to Respondent No.4 is unsustainable. Respondent No.4 has filed a detailed reply and has brought to the notice of this Court certain facts that due to ailment of his wife, he has submitted a representation and, therefore, accepting his representation, his transf...
Ajay Kumar Nanda Vs. the Managing Direcotr, M.P.P.K.V.V.C.L.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Ajay Kumar Nanda versus State of MP and otheRs.08.10.2012. Shri P.K.Pandey for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Engineer in the office of Chief Engineer, MP Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited, Jabalpur. Petitioner was transferred and, therefore, he approached this Court by filing a writ petition. This Court found that on the grounds raised interference by the Writ Court is not permissible and, therefore, granted liberty to the petitioner to represent to the department. The petitioner represented and not the representation having been rejected, petitioner is again before this Court challenging the rejection of his representation mainly on the ground that transfer of the petitioner amounts to frequent transfer and without considering the ground of frequent transfer, rejection of the representation is not correct. From the records it is seen that in W.P.No.12324/2012, this Court on 8.8...
Chandrachur Narware Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15614/20108. 10.2012 Shri Amit Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner is squarely covered by a decision of this Court where it has been held that in case an employee is granted a benefit of Kramonnati on account of stagnating on one post for a period of 12 or 24 yeaRs.the said benefit cannot be withdrawn on account of subsequent promotion. As per the instructions issued by the State Government, the salary of the person is to be fixed in accordance to the scale of pay on which he was working before the date of his promotion in terms of Fundamental Rule 22-A. The issue involved in this writ petition has already been decided by this Court in W.P.No.379/2009, Smt. Santosh Verma versus State of M.P.& otheRs.vide order dated 19.07.2011. The aforesaid writ petition has been disposed of in the following manner : 9. The fact remains that the petitioner has retired on 30th June, 2008 and on this date she was drawing the salary of Rs.9,900/- b...
Smt. Bhawana Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16356/2012 08.10.2012 Shri Sachin Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer, 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...
Maniraj Puri Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
1 Writ Petition No.16679/2012 08.10.2012 Shri Abhdesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents, on advance notice. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the controversy involved in this case is covered by the judgment of Apex Court in Asha Saxena Vs. State of M.P. & Others S.L.P. (Civil) No.18881/06 and this case may be decided in the light of aforesaid judgment.2. The Apex Court in Asha Saxena (Supra) considering the controversy involved in the case held thus :- The appellant herein was appointed as a Lecturer in the Government Girls' Higher Secondary School, Mama Ka Bazar, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, on 19.9.1981. Prior to entry into service, the appellant had in 1972 acquired B.Ed. Degree. According to the appellant, at the time of entry into service she was entitled to two advance increments in accordance with a Circular issued by the State Government on 21.9.1974, which reads as follows: "Pointwise clarificati...
Jitendra Singh Vs. Board of Director
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Jitendra Singh versus State of MP & OtheRs.08.10.2012. Shri Ajeet Singh 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 1988, for more than 24 yeaRs.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 o...
Mahesh Prasad Khare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15647/20108. 10.2012 Shri Vikas Mishra, 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 i...
Pramod Kumar Ughade Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.16785/2012 08.10.2012 Shri Jitendra Arya, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer, for respondents on advance copy. 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 petitions suc...
- ‹ Prev
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- Next ›
- Last »