Madhya Pradesh Court August 2012 Judgments
B.P.Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
31.8.2012 R.P.No.650/2012 Shri S.P.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.P.Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. This application has been filed for modification of the order dated 25.7.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.No.9842/2012 (s) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is employed as Assistant Veterinary Field Officer, however, in the order dated 25.7.2012 his designation has been referred to as Veterinary Field Officer. It is submitted that the petitioner claims his salary in the pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000. However, due to typographical error the pay- scale has been typed as Rs.5000-9000/-. The aforesaid aspect has not been disputed by learned Panel Lawyer. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the order dated 25.7.2012 is modified and the designation of the petitioner referred to in the aforesaid order shall be read as Assistant Veterinary Field Officer and the pay-scale shall be read to as Rs.5500-9...
Tag this Judgment!Tularam Vishvakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
WRIT PETITION No.13862/20131. 08.2012 Shri Shiv Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Ms.D.K.Bohre, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate direction to the respondents-authorities to extend them the benefit of time bound promotion, commonly known as Kramonnati and arrears of salary with all consequential benefits as per GAD circular dated 19.04.1999 and as per law laid down by this Court in the case of Tejulal Yadav versus State of M.P.& otheRs.W.P.No.11507/2007(s) decided on 23.01.2009 reported in ILR (2009) MP page 1326. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the decision rendered in the case of Tejulal Yadav (supra) has been affirmed by Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.966/2009 (State of M.P.& others versus Tejulal Yadav) and the SLP(Civil)No.14582/2012 filed by the State Government before the Apex Court has also been dismissed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!B.S.Chandrosha Vs. the State of M.P. and ors
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
1 CivilRevisionNo.622/2004 31.8.2012 ShriN.Jauhari,learnedcounselforthepetitioner. Heardonadmission. This revision under Section 19 of Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham AdhikaranAdhiniyam, 1983 isdirected against the award dated 25.5.2004 passed by Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal; wheeby, claim preferred by the petitioner has been declined. In respect of Patrolling in the command area of Ajnai Distributory k.m. 07 to k.m 15, an agreement was entered into betweenthepetitionerandrespondentsvideNo.21/199798. The workorderinpursuancetheretowasissuedbyExecutiveEngineer, HardaBranchCanalDivision,HardavideitsletterNo.4845dated 29.10.1997.Theduedateforcompletionwas28.4.1998andcontract pricewasRs.54,775/.Themodeandformoftenderwasitemrate FormB. Somedisputearoseatthestageofpaymentoffinalbill which led the petitioner contractor to make reference to Superintending Engineer vide Reference dated 2..1999/6.4.1999 underclause4.3.29.2oftheagreement...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sunanda Tambe Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
WRIT PETITION No.13916/20131. 08.2012 Shri Aniruddha Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Ms. D.K. Bohre, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents-State. Heard on the question of admission. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the services rendered by her in the Local Body has not been considered for grant of pension treating it to be a qualifying service. It is stated by Mr. Aniruddha Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised has already been decided by this Court in W.P. No.4919/2003 (Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others) and other similar connected writ petitions decided on 27.11.2003 holding that the period spent in Janpad Sabha/Municipal Bodies has to be counted as pensionable service. It is conceded at bar that matter is similar as decided in W.P. No.4919/2003 (Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others) and other connected matters on 27.11.2003 by this Court. This Court has passed the following order : In these writ petitions, quest...
Tag this Judgment!Smt.Sudesh Ahluwalia (Nakera) Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
W.P.No.13660/2012 31.08.2012 Shri Sachin Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. Petitioner is challenging an action of the respondents in denying the benefit of second Kramonnati and proposing to make recovery of benefit already granted, the question involved in this petition already decided by a Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Pramod Koranne versus State of M.P.and others in W.P.No.6773/2006, decided on 26.04.2007, and subsequently followed by this Court in series of cases, one such order being W.P.No.5756/2008 (s).Shri R.C.Chaurasiya and others versus State of M.P.and 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...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kripal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
WP No.13329 o31. 08.2012 Shri Raman Patel with Shri Mahendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.M.Lal, learned Govt. Adv for respondent Nos.1 to 6. Petitioner's counsel is directed to supply a copy of the entire papers of the case of the trial court enabling the court to consider the disputed question involved in this petition. Besides this, he is directed to file copies of the orders passed by the Tahsildar as well as by SDO which were subject matter before the court of Commissioner as well as before the State Minister of Revenue Department of M.P.Such exercise be carried out within 15 days and this matter be listed under the same head in the week commencing 17.9.2012. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
WRIT PETITION No.13831/20131. 08.2012 Shri Pankaj Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Ms.D.K.Bohre, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents-State. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners 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 suc...
Tag this Judgment!Ashneel Kumar Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
WRIT APPEAL 947...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Krishna Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
W.P.No.13590/2012 31.08.2012 Shri Sachin Sisodia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners 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 f...
Tag this Judgment!Preetam Vs. Vandu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
W.P No.13432 o31. 08.2012 Shri P. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission. After perusing the impugned order alongwith the papers placed on record, it is directed that on payment of PF alongwith requisites of registered post within three working days, notice against admission as well as IA No.10843/12, an application for grant of stay against further proceeding of the trial court, returnable by fixing a date in the month of October 2012 be issued to the respondents, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. As an interim measure till next hearing of this petition the trial court shall be at liberty to hear the arguments in the matter but in any case shall not take into consideration the Commissioner's report which is to be so received or has been received in compliance of the impugned order dated 30.7.2012, (Ann. P-5) for adjudication of the suit and if such court deems fit to ta...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »