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.
Sanjay Kumar Andhwan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
W.P.No.20586/2012 10/12/2012 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned P.L.for the respondents/State on advance notice. Having heard Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned counsel for the State on advance notice, it is seen that against the imposition of penalty of withdrawing of two increments with cumulative effect, an appeal filed by the petitioner is pending consideration before Respondent No.1, appellate authority namely the Commissioner and the appeal is yet to be decided and in the meanwhile, respondents are proposing to recover a sum of more than ` 62 Lacs from the petitioner. Grievance of the petitioner is that the action taken for proposing recovery is not sustainable and, therefore, the same be interfered with. Keeping in view the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner and considering the fact that an appeal filed by the petitioner is still pending, following directions are issued : On t...
Jagannath Kumre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
W.P.No.20453/2012 10/12/2012 Shri Abhijeet A. Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned P.L for the respondents/State. Petitioner is working as a Patwari and has been transferred from one place to another and seeking cancellation of order of transfer for various personal grounds, particularly, his ill health, petitioner has submitted a representation. The representation is still pending before Respondent No.2 and, therefore, the prayer made is that the Respondent Nos.2 be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and take a decision with regard to cancellation of transfer or otherwise. Considering the same, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass a speaking order within a period of four weeks. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Khoobchand Bathre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
W.P.No.20580/2012 10/12/2012 Shri P.Pareek, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner has been suspended on the ground that he has not complied with the directions issued by his superior officeRs.Challenge is made mainly on the ground that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are incorrect and, therefore, petitioner wants this Court to hold that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are unsustainable. This matter has to be dealt with by the appellate authority and as the statutory remedy of appeal under Rule 9 of the M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules is available to the petitioner, it is not appropriate for this Court to interfere into the matter on merits. Accordingly it is directed that if the petitioner prefers an appeal under Rule 9 of the M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) 1966, the appellate authority shall decide the same in accordance with law within a period of 30 days' from the date of receipt of certified...
Pramod Kaurav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
Pramod Kaurav versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others 10.12.2012. Shri Neeraj Ashar for the petitioner. Shri V.P.Tiwari, PL, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. None appears for respondent No.4 even though served and represented by counsel. Respondent No.5 has been seeking time since 28.2.2011, but till date reply is not filed. Considering the short question involved in the matter and taking note of the fact that the order impugned dated 5.9.2008 Annexure P/6, is passed by the Minister concerned without hearing the petitioner and as the order adversely affects the petitioner, the same is unsustainable. Gram Panchayat in question issued an advertisement for appointment of Panchayat Karmi. In all 31 applications were received and based on the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat in the meeting held on 4.8.2007, respondent No.5 Rameshwar Kaurav was appointed as Panchayat Karmi based on the majority decision and accordingly order of appointment Annexure P/1 was issued on 6.8.2007. As the sai...
Chandu Lal Jaiswal Vs. South Eastern Coal Field Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
chandulal jaiswal versus secl & ORS.W.P.No.271/2010 10.12.2012: Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Kanak Gaharwar, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Petitioner had filed this writ petition with regard to appointment of respondent No.3. It is a case of the petitioner that by misrepresentation and by use of fraudulent means, respondent No.3 had been granted appointment and therefore, challenging the appointment, this writ petition was filed. During the couRs.of hearing of this writ petition, since its filing in the year 2010 various orders were passed by this Court and finally it is not reported by Smt. Kanak Gaharwar, that in pursuance to the interim order passed, documents have been collected by various authorities and enquiry in the matter of appointment of respondent No.3 is in progress. She has indicated the progress in the enquiry and submits that the same shall be concluded within three months and based on the report that may be submitted by the...
Dheeraj Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
Dheeraj Pandey versus State of Madhya Pradesh and otheRs.10.12.2012. Shri Vivek Rusia for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the State. Shri Rajendra Patel for respondent No.3. Petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming compassionate appointment. Claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide order-dated 13.3.2012 only on the ground that after a period of seven years compassionate appointment cannot be granted. However, policy of the State Government in the matter of granting compassionate appointment has been changed on 13.1.2011 and the rider of limitation of seven years fixed has been done away with. In view of the above, petitioners case is required to be reconsidered in accordance to this policy dated 13.1.2011. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Order-dated 13.3.2012 Annexure P/9 is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner in accordance to the policy and circular dated 13.1.2011 and take a...
Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
W.P. No. 2306/2012 10.12.2012 Shri D.P. Pandian, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Order dated 27.10.2011 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 887/2011 is being assailed vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Vide impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the original application on the ground that the petitioner's earlier application for the similar relief has been rejected by the Tribunal and the petitioner canNo. be permitted to urge the same in another original application. The material on record reveals that petitioner's father was initially appointed as Gangman in 1961. He was declared medically unfit for all posts by Medical Board for further service and was retired from Railway Services on 27.11.1996. On 24.12.1996 petitioner's father moved an application for appointment of petitioner on compassionate ground. The same was,...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Shri Ram Kripal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-08-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Writ Petition No.17689 of 2011 PetitioneRs.1. State of Madhya Pradesh through the Divisional Forest Officer Satna, Distt. Satna (M.P.) 2. The Forest Range Officer Forest Range Amarpatan Distt. Satna (M.P.) versus Respondent: Shri Ram Kripal s/o Ram Kishore Verma R/o New Ram Nagar, distt. Satna (M.P.) Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Krishn Kumar Lahoti Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Jain. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Counsel for the petitioneRs.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER ( 8.12.2011) Per Krishn Kumar Lahoti, J. This petition is directed against an award dated 31.8.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Satna in Case No.92 of 2005 I.D.Act (Reference) by which the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the respondent without back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that (i) the reference was filed after 1...
Rajendra Kumar Sonakiya Vs. Smt. Sushila Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
R.P.No.841/2012 06.12.2012 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Udyan Tiwari, and Shri Abhishek Tiwari, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Shri Prabhat Asati and Shri Akhilesh Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. This review application has been filed for recalling of the order dated 4.10.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.3667/2005. In fact, the writ petition was filed by the respondent No.1 herein for the following relief :- The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record pertaining to issue the order dated 16.3.2005 and quash the said order and also direct the respondents to pay sufficient amount of Rs.5000/- every month till the final decision in the S.L.P.before the Apex Court filed by the State Government. On service of the notice of the writ petition, the review petitioners herein, the respondents No.2 and 3 in writ petition have filed their return and have categorical...
Smt.Saraswati Soni Vs. Nagar Panchayat Kothi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
Smt. Saraswati Soni versus State of MP and two others 07.12.2012. Shri T.S.Ruprah, Senior Advocate, with Shri P.K.Shukla for the petitioner. Shri Praveen Pandey for respondents 1 and 2. Challenging the concurrent orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner as contained in Annexures P/6 and P/7, in the matter of interfering with the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III in Government Boys Primary School, Kothi, District Satna, this writ petition has been filed. Respondent No.2 the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Kothi, District Satna issued an advertisement vide Annexure P/1 on 16.6.1998, notifying the requirement of Shiksha Karmis Grade I, Grade II and Grade III. Various posts were notified and one of the post notified was a post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III, reserved for a woman candidate in the Other Backward Caste category. Petitioner being eligible for appointment applied for this post and it was indicated that petitioner had also wor...
- ‹ Prev
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- Next ›
- Last »