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.
K.A. Kunjumon Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
W.P.No.19605/2012 05.12.2012 Shri Rajesh Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, for respondents No.1 and 2, on advance copy. The grievance of the petitioner is that though an order of promotion was issued in respect of the petitioner promoting him on the post of Upper Division Clerk against the post of Accountant as back as 17.1.2001 and the charge of the said post was given to the petitioner, but since the approval of such a posting has not been granted by the District Education Officer, the petitioner is not getting regular salary of the post of Upper Division Clerk. It is contended that the matter was referred to the District Education Officer by the Society running the school as back as on 17.1.2001 itself, but till date the action has not been taken, therefore, the promotion of the petitioner is not regularised. Since the school in question is receiving the grant-in-aid, the District Education Officer is to act as the Education Officer ...
Rajendra Singh Kachhaway Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Rajendra Singh Kachhaway versus State of M.P.& ORS.W.P.No.19669/2012 05/12/2012 Shri Satish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State. Challenging the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for conducting a departmental enquiry under Rule 14 of the M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules and contending that subsistence allowance of the petitioner has not been enhanced, this writ petition has been filed. It was pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the Principal of the Institute issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner vide Annexure-P5 dated 26.10.2010. According to the petitioner, he has submitted a reply to the said charge-sheet vide Annexure-P7 dated 14.2.2011 and it seems that a departmental enquiry was ordered and on 3.11.2012 vide Annexure-P9, an enquiry officer has been appointed. not grievance of the petitioner is that for the same set of allegatio...
Smt. Sundar Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Smt. Sundar Bai versus State & ORS.W.P.No.19438/2012 05/12/2012 Shri A.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner is working in a Shahri Parivar Kalyan Kendra Adhartal District-Jabalpur and vide order dated 13.7.2012, she has been transferred from Jabalpur to Seoni. Inter-alia contending that the petitioner is an office bearer, namely Secretary of the District Committee of the M.P Class-III Employees Union Branch-Jabalpur in the year 2011 and as per the policies and circulars of the State Government, petitioner is granted protection from transfer, being an office bearer of the Union, this writ petition has been filed. Records indicate that the transfer order was passed on 13.7.2012 and his representation is still pending. Keeping in view the same, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merit, respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petit...
Shiv Kumar Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Shiv Kumar Pandey versus State & ORS.M.C.C.No.1407/2012 07/12/2012 Shri Narendra Nikhare, learned counsel for the applicant. This application has been filed for restoration of W.P.No.15898/2011(s).which has been dismissed in view of the peremptory order passed by this Court on 21.9.2011. Keeping in view the reasons indicated in the application, which is supported by the affidavit of the applicant himself and finding the same to be bona-fide, this application is allowed. W.P.No.15898/2011(s) be restored to it's original file, it be placed for orders before the appropriate bench as per roster. With the aforesaid, the application stands disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Om Prakash Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Om Prakash versus State of M.P.& ORS.W.P.No.20162/2012 05/12/2012 Shri L.N.Sakle, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi in Gram Panchayat Chandgarh, which according to the petitioner has been abolished because of submergence of the said village. The petitioner has become surplus Panchayat Karmi, and is therefore, required to be absorbed in other Gram Panchayat, wherever the vacancy is available. It is contended that similar matter was considered by this court in the case of the Maniram Kori & Anr. versus State of M.P.& ORS.(W.P.No.8153/2007).wherein it was considered that the State Government should consider absorption of persons like petitioneRs.who have become surplus because of abolition of their Gram Panchayat. Considering the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner will make an appropriate representation before the concerned Zila Panchayat and the said Zila Panchayat will look into the same and...
Chhote Lal Pal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Chhote Lal Pal versus State of MP and otheRs.05.12.2012. Shri Anil Dwivedi for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohrey, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Panchayat Secretary in Gram Panchayat Basahi. Vide order-dated 13.7.2012 Annexure P/1 petitioner has been transferred to Chhaparatola, District Shahdol. One Shri Balkaran Prajapati, who was working in Janpad Panchayat Bhatiakhurd was posted in place of the petitioner at Basahi by the same order-dated 13.7.2012. Name of the petitioner appears at Serial No.19 and that of Shri Balkaran Prajapati at Serial No.20. It seems that both petitioner and Shri Balkaran Prajapati, submitted representation for cancellation of their transfer. Grievance of the petitioner is that in the case of Shri Balkaran Prajapati, his representation has been allowed and his transfer from Bhatiakhurd to Basahi has been cancelled, in the case of petitioner as no action is taken, petitioner is before this Court. Keeping in view the a...
Sapna Kushwaha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
W.P.No.20287/2012 (Sapna Kushwaha versus State of MP and otheRs.05.12.2012 Heard Shri Praveen Chourasiya, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of police authorities on the complaint made by the petitioner wherein she has brought to the notice of the authorities the fact that the respondents Nos.4 to 6 are threatening her relatives on account of the petitioner and one Arvind having entered into love marriage. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2, Superintendent of Police, Panna to look into the complaint of the petitioner and deal with it in accordance with law. It is made clear that this court has not issued any direction to the police authorities to blindly prosecute anybody but has only issued a direction to the police authorities to look into the complaint of the petitioner and if action has n...
Devi Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Devi Singh & ORS.versus State & ORS.W.P.No.20544/2012 07/12/2012 Shri Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondents/State Government. Petitioners have challenged the orders dated 15/09/09 by which the State Govt. has decided to close down the Library and Community Centres running in various villages. Questions involved in these writ petitions and tenability of similar action has already been considered and decided by this Court by a common order passed in W.P.No.590/2011(s).W.P.14312/2011(s).W.P.12477/2009 (s) W.P.17/2010 (s) and W.P.No.17445/2010 (s) on 15.9.2011. After considering similar prayer, the following directions were issued by this Court :- "Accordingly, taking note of the orders passed by the Rajasthan High Court in the writ petitions and writ appeals as indicated hereinabove, all these writ petitions are allowed and disposed of with the following directions:- Respondents are directed to take steps for conti...
B.L. Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
B.L.Patel versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others 05.12.2012. Shri Dharmendra Soni for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohrey, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Keeping in view the fact that the representation filed by the petitioner in the matter of transfer is pending before respondent No.2, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondent No.2 is directed to decide the representation in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Shambhoo Prasad Pandey Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Shambhoo Prasad Pandey versus State of MP and others 05.12.2012. Shri Rajesh Chand and Shri Jitendra Jain for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohrey, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. A charge-sheet Annexure P/1 dated 21.7.2012 has been issued to the petitioner and various allegations have been levelled with regard to producing false documents at the time of appointment. Petitioner by filing various documents has tried to indicate that the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet are not correct and, therefore, the charge-sheet be quashed. For the present, only a charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner and question is pending before the disciplinary authority/inquiry officer. Petitioner has filed various documents and wants this Court to examine the charges levelled in the charge-sheet, inquire into the same and exonerate him by recording a finding. This function cannot be undertaken by a writ court at this stage when only a charge-sheet is issued to the petitioner. The m...
- ‹ Prev
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- Next ›
- Last »