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.
Ram Kripal Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16429/20105. 10.2012 Shri Amit Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner claims grant of leave encashment on the ground that the petitioner is a retired Headmaster and in the case of similarly situated person, I.e.W.P.No.4787/2005 (S) (Chhaganlal Kankrecha versus State of M.P.and others).decided by the Indore Bench of this Court on 22.01.2007, the benefit has been granted. Petitioner claims the same benefit as has been granted to other similarly situated teachers by virtue of the order passed in the case of Chhaganlal Kankrecha (supra).Keeping in view the aforesaid, respondents are directed to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of the order passed by this Court on 22.01.2007 in the case of Chhaganlal Kankrecha (supra) and decide the same in accordance with law and entitlement of the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is finally disposed o...
Matu Lal Dhruve Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.16503/2012 05.10.2012 Shri Naval Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State on advance notice. Heard on the question of admission. Petitioners are challenging an action of the respondents in denying the benefit of second Kramonnati and proposing to make recovery of benefit already granted, the question involved in this petition already decided by a Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Pramod Koranne versus State of M.P.and others in W.P.No.6773/2006, decided on 26.04.2007, and subsequently followed by this Court in series of cases, one such order being W.P.No.5756/2008 (s).Shri R.C.Chaurasiya and others versus State of M.P.and otheRs.decided on 26.05.2008. In the case of Smt. Prerna (supra) the directions given is as under. 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 c...
Kuldeep Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.6334/2012 (Kuldeep Singh & ORS.versus State of M.P.& ors.) 05.10.2012 Heard Shri P.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the action taken by the respondent No.5, Incharge Police Station, Baheriya, District Sagar in Crime No.39/2011, registered at P.S.Behariya for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 34(1)/34(2) of the M.P.Excise Act, 1960, pursuant to an FIR lodged on 15.03.2011. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the police authorities, after conducting an investigation, have filed a challan against one person namely Jitendra but the respondent No.5 is conducting further investigation with the intention of making the petitioners as additional accused and therefore, appropriate directions be issued to the police authorities not to do so. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and am of the considered opinion that ...
Smt. Sandhya Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16231/20105. 10.2012 Shri I.S.Yadav, 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 suc...
Mahesh Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Mahesh Kumar Mishra versus State & ORS.W.P.No.16237/2012 08/10/2012 Shri Ajeet Kumar Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as a Head Constable and has been transferred from Tikamgarh to Sagar, he has joined on the transferred post and pointing out certain personal inconveniences and financial crises, he has submitted the representation seeking cancellation and modification of the order of transfer. As the petitioner has already joined at the transferred post and has submitted a representation seeking cancellation or modification of transfer order, the competent authority is duty bound to consider the representation of the petitioner. In view of the above, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with the copy of the representation, the competent authority shall decide the representation dated 27.8.2012 in accordance with law within a period of four weeks' from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With...
National Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Rakesh Kumar Kachhwaha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
1 M.A. 1208/2010 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA M.A. No.1208/2010 .........Appellant: The National Insurance Company Through Divisional Manager, 495, Marhatal, D.O.I., Jabalpur. Versus .......Respondents/:1. Rakesh Kumar Kachhwaha, S/o Shri Motilal Kachhwaha, R/o Katra District Mandla, M.P.2. Sushil Oil Mill, Prop. Shri Sushil Kumar Pamnani, R/o Subhash Ward, Mandla, M.P. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appellant by - Shri Gulab Sohane, Advocate Respondent No.1 by - Shri Narendra Chouhan, Advocate Respondent no.2 by - Shri Paritosh Trivedi, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (05/10/2012) This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short W.C. Act) against the award dated 16.1.2010 passed by learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation Act, Jabalpur in W.C. No.73/06.2. No...
Vinay JaIn Vs. Pranta Adhyaksh, M.P. Diploma Engineers Association
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
R.P.No.687/2012 05-10-2012 Shri Vishal /Dhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. From a perusal of the record it is clear that no apparent error has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner warranting interference of this Court in the impugned order disposing of the petition. From a perusal of the order dated 27-7-2012 itself it is apparent that the petition has been disposed of as infructuous on the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As re-hearing of the petition is not permissible, I do not find any reason to entertain the present review application which, being meritless is accordingly dismissed. (R.S.Jha) Judge mct...
Shobhit Singh Uikey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.13729/12 5/10/12 Shri HaRs.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as an 'Asstt. Teacher' in Primary School, Bargaon, Block-Samnapur, Distt. Dindori and by the impugned order dated 13/07/12, petitioner has been transferred from one school to another in the same district. Challenge to the order of transfer is made on the ground that if petitioner is transferred from Bargaon, there will be shortage of teachers and working in the school would be adversely effected. The aforesaid ground raised by the petitioner is to be considered by the competent authority of the department and action taken. On such ground, as judicial review into an administrative order of transfer is not permissible, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prosecute the departmental remedy of representation available. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Jagdish Prasad Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Writ Petition No.16485/2012 05/10/2012 Shri Aniruddh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 petitioner is also similarly placed person 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 petitioner is 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 petitioner has 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 t...
Bhaiya Ram Choudhary Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.16491/2012 05.10.2012 Shri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, 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 su...
- ‹ Prev
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- Next ›
- Last »