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. Rachna Pateriya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Smt. Rachna Pateriya versus State & ORS.W.P.No.16288/2012 08/10/2012 Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned PL for the respondents/ State on advance notice. Challenging an interlocutory order passed by the Commissioner Sagar Division in a pending appeal, this writ petition has been filed. The matter pertains to appointment of Anganwadi Karyakarta. Even though, the petitioner was appointed and on an appeal filed before the Collector, it was found that the petitioner is not entitled to appointment as she is not local resident. Against the order passed by the Collector, the second appeal is pending before the Commissioner and as the Commissioner has refused to grant interim relief, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Merely because, the Commissioner has refused to grant interim relief, interference by this Court is not called for. As the appeal is pending before the Commissioner, the Commissioner is directed to make endeavor, hear ...
Gulab Rao KanaThe Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.16743/2012 08.10.2012 Shri Amit Chaturvedi, 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 s...
Sheikh Mohammad Mehbood Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Sheikh Mohammad Mehboob versus State of M.P.& ORS.1 Writ Petition No.17052 8. 10.2012: Shri A.M.Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel with Shri S.K.Mishra, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State, on advance notice. Challenging his suspension vide order Annexure P-10 on 22.9.2012 petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner is working as Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat Panagar and challenge to the order of suspension is made merely on the ground that it has been passed malafidely and, therefore, is unsustainable. Records indicate that petitioner has been transferred and he has challenged his transfer by filing a writ petition before this Court being W.P.No.12807/2012(s).On 23.8.2012 this Court issued notice in the said writ petition and directed for maintaining status-quo. Interalia contending that petitioner has been relieved and, therefore, status-quo order be modified petitioner filed another application, which was...
Ganapat Garg Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.7000 / 2012 (Ganpat Garg ..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.08-10-2012 Shri Dayaram Vishwakarama, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned G.A.for the State/respondent. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order 2-12-2011 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Jabalpur, respondent No.4 and the order dated 10-4-2012 passed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur, respondent No.2, in appeal whereby the petitioner's suspension as Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Padwar, Janpad Panchayat, Jabalpur has been affirmed. It is pointed out by the learned Dy. Govt Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is revisable before the State under the provisions of M.P.Panchayat (Appeal and revision) Rules, 1995 framed by the State under the M.P.Panchayatraj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 as well as the provisions of Rule 8 of M....
Rajendra Kumar Shiv Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
1 W.A.No.1034/2012 8.10.2012 Shri Amit Seth, Counsel for appellant. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.GA for respondents. I.A.No.12155/12 for amendment in the cause title For the reasons stated in the application, prayer made in the application is allowed. Appellant is permitted to correct the cause title. Necessary correction be carried out during couRs.of the day. Matter is heard on admission. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the Single Bench in W.P.No.13700/12 dated 29.8.2012 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant against transfer order, from Secretary, Gram Panchayat Mohgaon Yadav, Janpad Panchayat Kurai, District Seoni to Panchayat Mohgaon Sadak, was dismissed. This order has been assailed by the appellant mainly on the ground that the transfer order was contrary to the transfer policy framed in compliance of sub-rule 7 of rule 6 of the M.P.Panchayat Services (Gram Panchayat Secretaries Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 2011. It was also submitted ...
Om Prakash Vs. Rama
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.15204 o28. 09.2012 Shri B.R.Vijaywar, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.The petitioneRs.counsel is heard on the question of admission. The petitioners-defendants have filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of order dated 9.7.2012, (Ann. P-9) passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Betul in C.S.No.3-A/12, whereby the application of the respondents filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC to amend the suit for the relief of possession and mandatory injunction has been allowed. PetitioneRs.counsel after taking me through the petition as well as papers placed on record argued that initially the suit, (Ann. P-1) was filed by the respondents - plaintiffs for perpetual injunction and not for any other relief but in pendency of the suit when they could not get success in getting the interlocutory injunction against the petitioneRs.then the aforesaid application to insert the pleadings to claim possession and mandatory injunction was filed. In conti...
Ku. Kusum Lata Raikwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15692/20108. 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...
Triloki Nath Guha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16628/20108. 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...
Dinesh Grih Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Bhopal Vs. Sarvadharm Grih Nirman S ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.6155 o08. 10.12 Shri Ishtihaq Hussain, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anil Lala, counsel for respondent No.1. Presence of other respondents being co-defendants with the petitioner in the trial court is not necessary in this petition as the same could be adjudicated effectively only in presence of the petitioner and respondent No.1/plaintiff, hence notices against respondents No.2 to 4 are dispensed with. With the consent of the parties, this petition is heard finally. This petition is filed on behalf of the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 8.2.2011 passed by IV Additional Judge (Fast Track) to the Court of X ADJ Bhopal in C.RA No.149-A/08 whereby an application of respondent No.1/plaintiff filed under Order 6 rule 17 of the CPC for amendment in the plaint at the appellate stage has been allowed at interlocutory stage. The petitioner's counsel after taking me through the papers placed on the record along w...
Naresh Kumar Digarra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Naresh Kumar Digarra versus State of M.P.& ORS.1 Writ Petition No.16651 8. 10.2012: Shri Himanshu Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as Samvida Shala Shikshak, Grade-II. Petitioner claims his amalgamation on the post of Adhyapak Sambarg in view of policies and circulars of the State Government, and on the basis of the qualifying diploma in teaching. From the records it is seen that claim made by the petitioner for amalgamation is pending before the competent authority the Collector, respondent No.2, and in that view of the matter for the present without interfering into controveRs.on merit respondent No.2 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for amalgamation as prayed for and pass appropriate orders on the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid. Certified copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss*...
- ‹ Prev
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- Next ›
- Last »