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.
Khuman Lal Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Khuman Lal Ahirwar 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 ...
Preetam Singh Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :605. OF 200.(s) Mukesh Kumar Rai V/s State of M.P. & Ors. Writ Petition No :671. OF 200.(s) Ramsujan Patel & Ors. V/s State of M.P. & Ors. Writ Petition No :672. OF 200.(s) Preetam Singh Thakur V/s State of M.P. & Ors. & Writ Petition No :674. OF 200.(s) Navneet Tiwari & Ors. V/s State of M.P. & Ors. Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Maninder Singh Bhatti, Shri Sankalp Kochar and Shri Rajesh Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondents/State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER 8.10.2012 As common questions of law and facts are involved in all these four petitions and as the impugned orders are also identical in nature they are being disposed of by this common order and for the sake of con...
Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Ashok Kumar Sharma versus State & ORS.W.P.No.9105/2012 09/10/2012 Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner was a candidate, who had appeared in the test conducted for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III. Grievance of the petitioner is that for the degree of D.Ed. held by the petitioner, he is entitled to 20 marks in accordance with Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions) of Contract Rules, 2005 and as the aforesaid marks are not granted to the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed, when representations in this regard did not yield any result. Keeping in view the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner and an order dated 31.8.2012 passed under similar circumstances in W.P.No.13852/2012(s) (Megha Gontiya versus State & Ors.).the competent authority is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of three weeks' from the date of r...
Savitabai @ Kapuri Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Savita Bai versus State & ORS.W.P.No.5703/2012 09/10/2012 Shri Mukesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner's husband was working as a Peon in the Government High School, he died in harness on 17.3.2011 and seeking compassionate appointment after death of her husband, petitioner has submitted various applications but as the same is not considered, petitioner is before this Court. Keeping in view the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with the representations submitted, the competent authority shall consider and decide the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in accordance with schemes and policies applicable within a period of two months. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Beniram Edpache Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Beniram Edpache versus State of M.P.& Anr. 1 Writ Petition No.16298 8. 10.2012: Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State, on advance notice. Petitioner is working as Head Master and has been transferred from one school to another in the same district. The transfer order was passed more than 3 months back on 13.7.2012 and records indicate that the grounds raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are not such on the basis of which judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is permissible. Learned counsel invites my attention to various orders passed under similar circumstances whereby representations were directed to be decided and interim protection be permit the employee to work till representation is decided was ordered. In the present case, transfer order is passed more than 3 months back on 13.7.2012 and petitioner has filed this writ petition not after more than 2 months, that being...
The Chief Executive Officer Mprrda 5th Floor 'b' Wing Paryawas Bhawan ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
A.R.No.1/2012 8.10.2012 Shri Shashank Shekhar, counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Vikas Tiwari, counsel for respondent. Heard on admission. This revision is admitted for final hearing. Notice on behalf of respondent is accepted by Shri Tiwari. I.A.No.7322/2012 and I.A.No.11621/2012 for stay. Notice of these applications are accepted by Shri Tiwari. Shri Tiwari prays for two weeks time to file reply. Prayer is allowed. Till next date of hearing, it is directed that the operation of the impugned award, shall remain stayed on following conditions :- 1. The petitioners to deposit 50% of the awarded amount within a period of two weeks before the Tribunal.2. On deposit of aforesaid amount, the recovery of remaining amount under the impugned award dated 31.3.2012 in reference case no.53/2009 by M.P.Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal, shall remain stayed.3. The respondent, on deposit of amount, shall be entitled to withdraw it by furnishing surety to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. Be listed for hearing...
Mukesh Kumar Rai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :605. OF 200.(s) Mukesh Kumar Rai V/s State of M.P. & Ors. Writ Petition No :671. OF 200.(s) Ramsujan Patel & Ors. V/s State of M.P. & Ors. Writ Petition No :672. OF 200.(s) Preetam Singh Thakur V/s State of M.P. & Ors. & Writ Petition No :674. OF 200.(s) Navneet Tiwari & Ors. V/s State of M.P. & Ors. Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Maninder Singh Bhatti, Shri Sankalp Kochar and Shri Rajesh Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondents/State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER 8.10.2012 As common questions of law and facts are involved in all these four petitions and as the impugned orders are also identical in nature they are being disposed of by this common order and for the sake of con...
Hari Ram Prajapati Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16773/2018. 10.2012 Shri Hemant Bhannarwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer, for respondents on advance copy. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the respondents/authorities after having given the petitioner the benefit of second Kramonnati in accordance with the circular of the State Government dated 19.04.1999 has subsequently withdrawn and recovered the same and has fixed him in the salary of Rs.5000-8000/- instead of Rs.5500-9000/-. It is submitted that the act of the respondents is contrary to paragraph 4 of the circular issued by the State Government dated 18.08.2005, the fundamental rules and the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Laxman Singh Chouhan versus State of M.P.and otheRs.2006(1) MPJ.SN 10. In the circumstances, as the petitioner has directly approached this Court without filing any representation before the respondents/authorities who have yet to apply their mind to the claim o...
Dharmendra Sharma Vs. the District Magistrate
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.15611/2012 (Dharmendra Sharma & ors ..Vs..District Magistrate, Jabalpur & ors.) 09-10-2012 Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 6. Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No.7. Shri Pushpendra Kaurav, learned Dy. A.G.for the State/respondents. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the orders dated 15-2-2012 and 22-6-2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Jabalpur (Respondent No.1).in Case No.3B-121/2011-12 initiated by the petitioners by filing an application under Section 8B of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.).It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in spite of directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.19393/2011, dated 25-11-2011 directing the respondent/Magistrate to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably w...
Smt. Kanchan JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Smt. Kanchan Jain versus State & ORS.W.P.No.10309/2010 08/10/2012 Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned GA for the respondents/State. Challenging the orders passed by the Labour Court , Sagar on 30th of September, 2008 vide Annexure-P2 and by the Project Officer Centralised Child Development Project, Khurai as contained in Annexure-P1 dated 30th of June, 2010, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Respondent No.4 Smt. Laxmi Jain was appointed as an Anganwadi Karyakarta. While so working, her services were terminated in the year 1997, she challenged her termination by raising a dispute before the labour court and the labour court vide award Annexure-P2 dated 30th of September, 2008 has found the termination to be illegal and has directed for her reinstatement. In pursuance to the order passed by the labour court thereto, services of the petitioner as a Anganwadi Karyakarta has been terminated, which was granted due to vacancy created aft...
- ‹ Prev
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- Next ›
- Last »