Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
Smt. Archana Bajpai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
W.P.No.12445/2012 27.08.2012 Lawyers are abstaining the work. Perused the record. The petitioner claims 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 is allowed whereas writ appeals filed by the State are dismissed i...
Jeevan Singh Lodhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, School Education D ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
W.P.No.11722/2012 27.08.2012 Lawyers are abstaining the work. Perused the record. 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 succeeds and is allowed whereas writ appeals filed by the State are dismissed ...
Sanjay Narvare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
1 W.P.No.13433/12 (s) 27/08/12 Petitioner in person. Petitioner is working as a 'Rural Agriculture Extension Officer' in the office of 'Senior Agriculture Development Officer' Parasiya, Distt. Chhindwara. By the impugned order, petitioner has been transferred from Chhindwara to Seoni and challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioner is an office bearer of the recognized union/association and, therefore, his transfer during the period of office bearer is unsustainable and in violation of the transfer policy. Merely, because transfer policy is violated, judicial review into an administrative order of transfer is not permissible in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs.S.L. Abbas AIR 1993.SC 244.and by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S.Chaudhary versus State of M.P.and otheRs.I.L.R. [2007].M.P. 1329 . In view of the above, it is not appropriate for this Court to interfere into the matter. However, ...
Mahesh Kumar Mehra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
Mahesh Kumar Mehra versus State W.P.No.13301/2012 27/8/2012 : Petitioner in person. Petitioner is working as Range Officer, Lawaghoghri, Territorial range, Chhindwara. Vide order Annexure P/1 dated 9.8.2012 petitioner is being transferred to Betul. Petitioner's Date of Birth is 12th August, 1952 and therefore, he is to retire on 31.8.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is surprising that an employee who is to retire on 31.8.2012 is being transferred just 20 days before his retirement on 9.8.2012. Either an administrative mistake has been committed by the respondents or the present is a glaring case of administrative negligence in dealing with the case of transfer. When an employee is to retire within a short period of 22 days, it is not appropriate to transfer him from one place to another. If petitioner is transferred then there will be a serious difficulty in settlement of the pensionary claiMs.Government policy itself prohibits transfer in the fag end of the career and t...
Barelal Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
W.P.No.12456/2012 27.08.2012 Lawyers are abstaining the work. Perused the record. The petitioner claims 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 is allowed whereas writ appeals filed by the State are dismissed i...
Anita Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
Anita Shukla versus State W.P.No.12861/2012 27/8/2012 : Petitioner in person. Challenging the action of the respondents in terminating the appointment of the petitioner from the post of Aganwadi Karyakarta vide order dated 13.8.2012, petitioner has filed this writ petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs.to the remedy of appeal available before the Collector and second appeal before the Commissioner. That being so, petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs.to the remedy available under the scheme is not permissible. Petitioner is granted liberty to file the appeal before the Collector. If an appeal is filed by the petitioner before the Collector in accordance to law within a period of 10 days from today, the Collector shall decide the appeal within a period of 45 days thereof. With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, the petition stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Mr.mishra...
N.S.Chouhan Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.18818/2003 N.S.Chouhan. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri N.S.Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents-State. ORDER (27.08.2012) This petition was originally filed as Original Application No.224/2001, before the M.P.Administrative Tribunal and has come on transfer to this Court after abolition of the Tribunal and is registered as writ petition. 2: The petitioner has called in question the order dated 8.8.2001, by which a penalty of withholding of one increment of pay without cumulative effect is imposed on the petitioner after giving him a show cause notice and conducting a summary enquiry under the provisions of Rule 16 of the M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for brevity).It is contended that the petitioner was due to retire in the mont...
Umesh Kumar Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
1 Writ Petition No.11214/2012 27.08.2012 Lawyers are abstaining from work. Perused the record. From perusal of the record it appears that the controversy involved in this case is covered by the judgment of Apex Court in Asha Saxena Vs. State of M.P. & Others S.L.P. (Civil) No.18881/06 and this case may be decided in the light of aforesaid judgment.2. The Apex Court in Asha Saxena (Supra) considering the controversy involved in the case held thus :- The appellant herein was appointed as a Lecturer in the Government Girls' Higher Secondary School, Mama Ka Bazar, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, on 19.9.1981. Prior to entry into service, the appellant had in 1972 acquired B.Ed. Degree. According to the appellant, at the time of entry into service she was entitled to two advance increments in accordance with a Circular issued by the State Government on 21.9.1974, which reads as follows: "Pointwise clarification of the queries born in connection with Pandey Commission Revised Pay Scales fixation is...
Smt. Amita Sonkar [Lakhera] Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
W.P.No.12579/2012 27.08.2012 Lawyers are abstaining the work. Perused the record. The petitioner claims 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 is allowed whereas writ appeals filed by the State are dismissed i...
Ganga Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
W.P.No.12522/2012 27.08.2012 Lawyers are abstaining the work. Perused the record. The petitioner claims 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 is allowed whereas writ appeals filed by the State are dismissed i...
- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›
- Last »