Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.
Vinod Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 W.A.No.240/2012 Vinot Kumar Mishra & others State of M.P.& others 30.7.2012 Shri Dileep Pandey, Counsel for appellants. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A.for respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dated 6.1.2012 passed by the Single Bench in W.P.No.21592/11 by which prayer of the appellants for consideration of their case as per Circular dated 15.4.2005 was declined on the ground that the appellants were not entitled for any relief in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & others versus Uma Devi & others (2006) 4 SCC 1. Learned counsel for appellants at the outset submitted that aforesaid judgment relates to regularisation of services and not re-engagement. The appellants were engaged for the period between 1995 and 2000 and thereafter because of the policy decision of the respondents, appellants were disengaged. It was submitted that the prayer of the appellants before this Court is for consideration of their case as per Circular dated...
Ku. Maya Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
W.P.No.9998/2012 30/07/2012: Shri Anirudh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri B.P.Pandey, learned GA on advance notice for respondents/State. Petitioners are challenging an action of the respondents in denying the benefit of second kramonnati and proposing to make recovery of benefit already granted after retirement from service, the question involved in this petition already decided by a Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna W/o. Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.and OtheRs.in W.P.No.6773/06, decided on 26/04/2007, and subsequently followed by this Court in series of cases, one such order being passed in W.P.No.5756/08(s).Shri R.C.Chaurasiya & Others versus State of M.P.& 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 circular dated 21...
Rajiv Nigam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 W.P.No.15202/2008 (s) 30/7/2012: Shri Abhijeet Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Gaurav Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioner is working in the department of Urban Administration and Development and has filed this writ petition claiming the benefit of grant of krammonati after completing 12/ 24 years of service and various other benefits. Another employee of Urban Administration and Development Department one Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal had filed a writ petition bearing not W.P.11691/08 (s) before this Court claiming similar benefits and the said writ petition has been allowed and disposed of vide order dated 24.11.2010 passed vide Annexure P/7 filed along with I.A.No.8630/2012. As petitioner is not claiming similar benefit as has been granted to Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal, for the present, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing certified copy of this order along with photocopy of order passed in W.P.No.11691/2008 (s).the respondents shall...
Smt. O.P. Pal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
W.P.NO.11615/2012(S) 30-07-2012. Shri Awadesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is working as a Staff NuRs.in Public Health Centre,Chourai, District Chhindwara. She has been transferred to Primary Health Centre Pipalanarayanwar (Sausar) in the same district of Chhindwara. Challenge to the impugned order of transfer is made on the ground of personal inconvenience of the petitioner due to various ailments. On the aforesaid ground, judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is not permissible. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the departmental remedy available. With the aforesaid liberty the petition stands dismissed. C.C.as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) hsp JUDGE...
Dr.Prashant Mishra Vs. the Assistant Registrar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
W.P.No.10887 / 2012 (Dr. Prashant Mishra..Vs..State of M.P.& ors.) 30-07-2012 Heard Shri Sunil Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent/authorities to register a FiRs.Information Report against the respondents No.3 and 4 and take suitable action against them. The Supreme Court in the cases of Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and otheRs.(2008) 2 SCC 40.and Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala and otheRs.(2008) 3 SCC 54.has categorically laid down that the remedy of petitioner in such circumstances is to take up appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure as specified therein. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take up appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as has been held by the Supreme Court in t...
Jagdish Prasad Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
W.P.No.11190/2012(s) 30.07.2012 Shri Sudhanshu K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned GA for the respondents/State. The petitioner claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioner 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 succeeds and i...
R.K.Jhariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
30.07.2012. Shri Rajesh Dubey for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner who is working as Assistant Veterinary Field Officer in Veterinary Hospital, Samanapur, District Dindori. By the impugned order petitioner has been transferred to Chhindwara and in his respondent No.3 has been posted. Challenge to the posting of respondent No.3 is made mainly on the ground that respondent No.3 has been granted adjustment by transferring the petitioner, his representation has been allowed which is unsustainable. Pointing out various inconveniences and representation of the petitioner for cancellation of the order of transfer, petitioner seeks interference into the matter. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State, points out that merely because the representation of respondent No.3 is allowed and he is posted in place of the petitioner, the same will not be illegal in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cas...
Ahmad Khan and ors Vs. Dayaram and anr
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
FA.No.472 o30. 7.2012 Shri Ishtihaq Hussain, counsel for the appellants. Shri Sameer Seth, counsel for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 being defendant, as per record of the trial court, has not challenge the impugned judgment along with the appellants/defendants, hence his presence does not appear to be necessary for adjudication of this appeal. Consequently, if the notice has not been served on this respondent then the same is hereby dispensed with. The appeal has already been abated long before on non-brining the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 on record within the prescribed period of 90 days. The same is also observed in the order sheet dated 4.7.2012. In such premises, this appeal being abated does not require further consideration, hence the appeal is dismissed accordingly. However, the appellants shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps for setting aside the abatement and to bring the legal representatives of respondent No.1 on r...
Ramlal Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Ramlal Vishwakarma versus State & ORS.Writ Petition No.11794 30. 7.2012: Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is working as a Revenue Inspector, in the office of Collector, District Damoh. By the impugned order petitioner is transferred to Tikamgarh. Challenge to the order of transfer is made merely on the ground that Cadre of Revenue Inspector is a District Cadre and, therefore, transfer of petitioner from one district to another would adversely effect his seniority. It is also stated that transfer is contrary to the transfer policy and, therefore, same is illegal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record I am of the considered view that on the grounds raised in this writ petition interference in not called for. As far as transfer of Revenue Inspector from one district to another is concerned this question has already been considered by this Court under similar circumsta...
Sukhendra Singh Parihar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
30.07.2012. Shri V.K.Shukla for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as Additional Director in the Agriculture Farmer Welfare & Agriculture Development. Certain adveRs.entries for the year 2008-09 were conveyed to the petitioner. Petitioner submitted a representation on 9.11.2009 pointing out various grounds on the basis of which it was stated that the adveRs.entry is required to be expunged. However, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by a non-speaking order, without application of mind and without giving any reasons as is evident from Annexure P/14 dated 19.7.2012. Keeping in view the manner in which the representation of the petitioner is rejected, this petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 19.7.2012 Annexure P/14, rejecting the representation of the petitioner, is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Government to decide the representation of the petitioner afresh in accordance to law by a speaking order within a period of one month from the date...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »