Madhya Pradesh Court December 2012 Judgments
Hitkarini College of Engineering and Technology (Mca College) Vs. the ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
WP No.15608 of 2012. 21.12.2012. Shri R.N.Singh, Sr.counsel with Shri Sankalp Kochar for the petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh,Dy.GA for the respondents State. Shri Pradeep Sharma for respondents No.2 and 3. I.A.No.15547/12 seeking amendment in the petition and I.A.No.15546/12 seeking interim relief/direction against respondents No.2 and 3: Leaned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submitted that he has not received copies of these applications. The copies of these applications are handed over by Shri Kochar to Shri Sharma in Court itself. Shri Sharma prays 10 days' time to file reply to these applications. Though the prayer is opposed by the counsel for the petitioner who submitted that the last date of filing application for extension of approval is 31.12.2012 and if the applications are not heard and decided, there maybe some difficulties to the petitioner after expiry of the aforesaid period. Shri Sharma submitted that he has not received the applications in the past and has received ...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Kewat [Mudha] Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
WRIT PETITION No.21481/20121. 12.2012 Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice of retirement so issued to him on 04.12.2012 (Annexure P-1) by which it is intimated that since he has completed the age of superannuation on 2nd December, 2012, accordingly the petitioner would retire on attaining the age of 62 years on 31.12.2012. It is contended that at the time of initial appointment the petitioner made a declaration with respect to his age as he is totally illiterate and it was made known to the authorities that he was 24 years of age on the date of appointment, i.e.on 01.08.1984. However, erroneously the date of birth was recorded as 02.12.1950 and treating the same the actual date of birth of the petitioner, he is sought to retire by the impugned notice. The medical examination of the petitioner was done on the basis of which the petitioner has made a declaration that he was of 44 years of age on the date when the affidavit was...
Tag this Judgment!Kadhori Lal Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
W.P.No.21157/2012 (Kadhori Lal Patel versus State of MP and otheRs.21.12.2012 Heard Shri V.P Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The only relief prayed for by the petitioner in the present petition is that the representation filed by the petitioner pending before the Tahsildar, Dhimarkheda District Katni be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. Learned panel lawyer Shri S.P.Rai appearing for the State on advance copy submits that the representation of the petitioner shall be considered and decided by the concerned authority expeditiously, in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner furnishes a copy of the order passed today along with copy of the petition within fifteen days to the Tahsildar, Dhimarkheda, District Katni, he shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner expediti...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Prasad Kol Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
WRIT PETITION No.21286/20121. 12.2012 Ms.Laxmi Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The only claim made by the petitioner in the writ petition is that though he has attained the age of superannuation on 30th June, 2011, yet his pensionary claims have not been settled as yet. It is contended that the petitioner was working as permanent Labour in the Public Works Department of Govt. of Madhya Pradesh and was made to retire by order dated 27.06.2011 on attaining the age of 62 yeaRs.Despite such facts, the respondents are not considering his representation, therefore, he has approached this Court. It is not clear from the pleadings or documents available on record to prove the fact that the petitioner was ever inducted in the work charge contingency establishment of the respondents or not. However, from the perusal of Annexure P-2, the service book of the petitioner, it appears that he was included as permanent Labour in a group. It has to be examined by the respondents whether the p...
Tag this Judgment!Panna Lal Patel Vs. Shri Sewa Ram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
Con.C.No.1346/2012 21/12/2012 Shri Sanjay K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Vijay Pandey, learned counsel for the non-applicants. Applicants claim to be working as a Daily Wages Employees and it was their grievance that in accordance with circulars and policies issued on 6.9.2008 and 27.1.2009, special allowance of ` 500/- and ` 1000/- has not been granted to them. On 2.12.2011 in W.P.No.19807/2011, this Court directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner and decide it. It was also indicated that if any amount of arrears is payable to the petitioneRs.the same shall be paid along with interest @ 6 % p.a.not from the reply filed, it is seen that the respondents have evaluated the claim of the petitioner and it is found that the petitioners are working as Casual Labours and, therefore, it is held that the circulars and policies issued by the State Government are not applicable and the claim of the petitioners has been rejected by the State Government. ...
Tag this Judgment!Vinay Shukla Vs. M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
W.P.No.21597 / 2012 (Vinay Shukla ..Vs..M.P.Housing and Infrastructure Development Board, Bhopal & anr.) 21-12-2012 Heard Shri S. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition praying that the representation (Annexure P-4).dated 16-11-2011, filed by the petitioner before the respondent/authorities be directed to be considered and decided by the respondent/authorities. In the circumstances, looking to the limited prayer made by the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner furnishes a copy of the order passed today along with a copy of the petition to the respondent/authorities within seven days of obtaining the same, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the petitioner's aforesaid representation, dated 16-11-2011 in accordance with law expeditiously. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entit...
Tag this Judgment!Neelesh Kumar Singh Vs. Bhanu Properties Ltd.(Bfl Group)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
W.P.No.20911/2012 21/12/2012 Shri Rajesh Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging an interlocutory order passed by the labour court Jabalpur rejecting a claim made by the petitioner under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act in the matter of interfering with certain change in his service condition during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings. It was the case of the petitioner that he was employed in the respondent's organization and by an oral order, his services have been terminated. Inter-alia contending that he is entitled to certain benefits, he raised a dispute before the appropriate Government. Prayer made was to the labour court to interfere into the matter exercising jurisdiction under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the ground that the service condition cannot be changed when the conciliation proceedings was pending. The Labour Court having rejected this contention, the present writ petition i...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sumitra Bai Dhobi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
W.P.No.21527/2012 21/12/2012 Shri Ashok Chakraverty, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents, on advance notice. PetitioneRs.claim to be working as Daily Wages Employees in respondents' department since 1992 and have filed this writ 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 ORS.versus Umadevi (3) & ORS.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 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. Petition stands disp...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Phuljhariya Vs. Shri K.K. Pandey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
Conc Case No :1114. 2010 Smt. Phuljariya versus Shri K.K.Pandey and two otheRs.21.12.2012. Shri Mahesh Shukla for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the non- applicants. Keeping in view the order passed by the non-applicants as contained in Annexure R/1 dated 28.5.2011, rejecting the claim of the applicant for grant of death-cum-retiral benefit mainly on the ground that applicants husband has only completed 5 years 2 months and 9 days service and does not fulfil the requirements contemplated under the Rule, I see no reason to initiate any action for contempt. In case the applicant has any grievance with regard to the manner in which her claim has been decided, liberty is granted to the applicant to challenge the order Annexure R/1 afresh. In view of the reply filed, the non-applicants are discharged from the proceedings and application disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Tag this Judgment!Saurabh Kumar Gangele Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
W.P.No.21642/2012 (S.K.Gangele versus State of MP and otheRs.21.12.2012 Heard Shri R.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order rejecting the petitioner's application for registration under the provisions of MP. Sah Chikitsiya Parishad Adhiniyam, 2000 is pending before the State Government Since July, 2012 and has not been decided till date and therefore, appropriate direction be issued to the State Government to decide the petitioner's appeal expeditiously, in accordance with law. Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned panel lawyer appearing for the State on advance copy submits that the appeal filed by the petitioner pending before the respondent No.1 shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »