Madhya Pradesh Court December 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.
Mulchand Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
Writ Petition No.21262/2012 Mulchand versus State of MP and others 18.12.2012. Shri Rajendra Pandey for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner claims regularization in service on the ground that he is working as a Gangman for more than 25 years and his case for regularization has not been considered in accordance to the Circular Annexure P/1. Keeping in view the aforesaid, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in accordance to the Rules framed namely, the Gangman Service Rules, 1996 (Annexure P/1) and decide the claim for regularization in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, this petition stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Ramashankar Shukla Vs. the Collector
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
MCC No.1442/2012 18.12.2012 Heard Shri Arvind Tiwari, learned counsel for applicant on the application for restoration of W.P.No.19616/12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that as the counsel appearing for the petitioner failed to search out the case in the cause list, he could not attend the hearing of the case which resulted in dismissal of the writ petition for want of prosecution. The application is supported by an affidavit of the counsel for the applicant and as the reasons stated therein appear to be bona fide, the application for restoration is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.12.2012 passed in W.P.No.19616/2012 is recalled and the aforesaid writ petition is directed to be restored to its original number. M.C.C.stands allowed accordingly. A copy of this order be placed in the record of W.P.No.19616/12. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Dr. S.S. Chouhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
W.P.No.21206/2012 18/12/2012 Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner is posted as a Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in District Hospital Sidhi. By the impugned order dated 6th of December, 2012, petitioner has been transferred to a Block Level Hospital in Singrouli. Challenge to the impugned order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that transfer is in violation of Clause-2.3 of the policy dated 6th of June, 2012. It is stated that the petitioner is only Specialized Surgeon available in the District Hospital and if the petitioner is transferred, working in the district hospital would be adversely effected. That apart, it is pointed out that nobody is posted in place of the petitioner and, therefore, working in the district hospital would be adversely effected. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the grounds raised by the petitioner...
R.N.Mishra Vs. B.P.Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
1 Conc. No.2013/2012 18.12.2012 Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt. Gulab K. Patel, learned counsel for the respondents. From the fact that have come on record, it is seen that action for complying with the directions issued by this Court on 2.2.2011 in W.P.No.1780/2011 (s) has been kept in abeyance as Writ Appeal No.722/2010 was pending. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and in the order passed vide Annexure R/1 on 4.5.2011 it is indicated that as the said writ appeal is pending, the matter shall be decided after the writ appeal is finally disposed of. not from the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 18.9.2012 in W.A.No.722/2010 it transpires that matter has been decided and writ appeal disposed of in accordance to the directions issued therein. As the writ appeal is not disposed of on 18.9.2012 respondents should take action for considering the claim of petitioners in accordance to directions issued by this Court on 2.2.2011 in ...
Deenanath Dandwate Vs. Satpuda Narmada Kshetriya GramIn Bank
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
W.P.No.20813/2012 (Deenanath Dandwate versus Satpura Narmada Gramin Bank ors.) 18.12.2012 Heard Shri Sunil Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner, who is a terminated employee of the respondent/Bank has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the respondent/Bank has frozen his bank account No.5450. The petitioner submits that he has taken a loan from the respondent/Bank, and is regularly paying the same, inspite of which his account has been freezed, which is not in accordance with law. It is stated that the petitioner has filed a representation before the respondent authorities on 16.08.2012 requesting them to release the said account, but no decision thereon has been taken till date. It is further stated that no such action has been taken by the respondent/Bank against the other similarly placed employees, while the petitioner has been singled out and has been subjected to discrimination. Looking to the ...
Bhim Singh Aoutiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
Writ Petition No.21212/2012 Bhim Singh Aoutiya and others versus State of MP and others 18.12.2012. Shri G.S.Uddey for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Petitioners are working in respondents Department since 2001 and have filed this petition seeking regularization. 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, who have completed 20 years of service, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners 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 petitioners by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. ...
Akhil Bhartiya Chourasia Maha Sabha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
M.C.C.No.1372/2012 18.12.2012 Heard Shri Rakesh Chourasiya, petitioner in person on the application for restoration of W.P.No.18973/12. It is submitted by the the applicant that his name as petitioner in person was not shown in the cause list, he could not attend the hearing of the case which resulted in dismissal of the writ petition for want of prosecution. The application is supported by an affidavit of the applicant and as the reasons stated therein appear to be bona fide, the application for restoration is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.11.2012 passed in W.P.No.18973/12 is recalled and the aforesaid writ petition is directed to be restored to its original number . M.C.C.stands allowed accordingly. A copy of this order be placed in the record of W.P.No.18973/12. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Lalaram Baiga Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
W.P.No.14859/2011 18/12/2012 Shri O.S.Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.11.2010 passed by Respondent No.3 by which appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled. Challenging the same order dated 27.11.2010 as contained in Annexure-P4, various writ petitions were filed before this Court and one such writ petition was filed by one Shri Gauri Shankar Baiga being W.P.No.14652/2011(s) and vide order dated 13.9.2012, a Bench of this Court has quashed the impugned order and directed for reinstatement of the similarly situated employee with back-wages. Keeping in view the aforesaid order and the reasons indicated therein and finding the petitioner to be similarly situated, for the reasons and consideration already made by this Court in W.P.No.14652/2011(s) on 13.9.2012, this writ petition is also allowed. The order impugned Annexure-P4 dated 27.11.2010 is quashed a...
P.L. Jaiswal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
W.P.21283/2012 18.12.2012: Shri Sanjay Sanyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 on advance notice. Petitioner is working as Sub Inspector and is presently Incharge Police Helping Center, Mangthar District Umariya. He has been suspended by the impugned order dated 26.11.2012 by the Superintendent of Police pending investigation into a departmental enquiry. Inter alia contending that the suspension of the petitioner is illegal, it is motivated due to certain acts of respondent No.3 to help respondent No.4, this writ petition has been filed. Challenge to the order of suspension is not made on the grounds of any statutory rules or regulations being violated instead it is challenged on the ground that it is motivated. Grounds raised in this writ petition are not such on the basis of which this Court can interfere with an order of suspension. As petitioner has remedy of filing an appeal before the competent authority, this ...
Shivmandir Society Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
1 W.P. No.9339/2012 Shiv Mandir Society vs. State of M.P.& Ors. 18.12.2012 Shri A. K. Jain learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S. M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Shri Vijay Shrivastava learned counsel for the intervenor. On directions of this Court, Shri N. L. Samrath, SDM Singrauli is present before this Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, after due deliberation the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of by recording the terms of the agreement and consensus expressed by the parties, in the following terms:- 1. The impugned order passed by the Collector, Satna is upheld.2. In terms of the aforesaid order, the Collector shall constitute a 10 member committee to manage the affairs of the temple.3. The aforesaid committee shall be chaired by the Collector, Satna and the SDM shall be the Secretary of the Committee. 2 W.P. No.9339/2012 Shiv Mandir Society vs. State of M.P...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »