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.
Subelal Katre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
W.P.No.12430/2012 27.08.2012 Lawyers are abstaining the work. Perused the record. It is contended in the writ petition that the dispute is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Dwarkesh versus State of M.P and another, [2004 (1) MPLJ 261 .and other analogous matters in W.P.No.2354/2003, W.P.No.2880/2003 (O.A.No.1309 and 2022 of 2002 decided on 30.8.2003 by Indore Bench of this Court and in the case of Ku.Neena Dwivedi and another versus State of M.P.and otheRs.2004(2) MPHT 221 Also reliance is placed on the order passed in the case of Shashi Bhusan Dwivedi versus State of M.P and others (W.P.No.6932/2006(s) decided by this Court on 15/05/2006. It is further contended that after the decision rendered in the aforesaid cases certain instructions were issued by the State Government. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court has further disposed of certain writ petitions. It is contended that the claim of the petitioner is identical to that of Dwarkesh (supra...
Smt.Laxmi Chaurasia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
1 W.P.No.13091/12 (s) 27/08/12 Petitioner in person. Petitioner is working as a 'Staff Nurse' in Bhopal. She has been transferred by the impugned order from Bhopal to Shahdol. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the grounds of personal inconveniences of the petitioner due to education of her children and by contending that petitioner is a widow lady and, therefore, if she is required to go to Shahdol, it would cause serious inconveniences to the petitioner. The grounds raised by the petitioner are the personal inconveniences of the petitioner due to which she is unable to carry out the order of transfer. On such grounds, judicial review into an administrative order of transfer is not permissible. It is the competent authority of the State Govt. to consider the difficulties expressed by the petitioner and take action in the matter. In view of the above, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with relevant documents, responden...
Laxmikant Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
W.P.No.1381/2011 27.08.2012 This Court has directed vide order dated 1.8.2012 to ensure the compliance of order dated 28.9.2011, failing which the District Education Officer Satna was directed to remain present before the Court. It appears that compliance of the order has not been done as nothing has been placed on record. Since the lawyers are abstaining the work, it is directed that District Education Officer shall remain present before the Court to explain why the order passed by this Court on 28.9.2011 was not complied with. Registry is directed to send the information of personal appearance of District Education Officer, Satna. List on 9.10.2012. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj....
Dinesh Kumar Dua Vs. Dr.G.S.Kalchuri
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
WP No.13039 o27. 08.2012 Shri Dinesh Kumar Dua, the petitioner No.1 is present in person. None for the petitioner no.2. On call of the State Bar Council of M.P.the Advocates are restrained from work hence the petitioneRs.counsel could not come to attend the case, as submitted by the petitioner no.1. Having heard on the question of admission to the petitioner no.1, in the available circumstances, it is directed that on payment of PF alongwith requisites of registered post within three days notice against admission as well as IA No.10549/12, an application for grant of stay against further proceeding of the impugned suit pending in the trial court, returnable by fixing a date within two months be issued to the respondents, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. Case be listed accordingly on such date which is so fixed on the notice. As an interim measure till next hearing of this petition further proceeding of the Civil Ori...
Peetambar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
W.P.No.12564/2012 27.08.2012 Lawyers are abstaining the work. Perused the record. Petitioners are 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 in the circular dated 21/03/1983 19/4/1999, 02/11/2001 and 03/09/2005. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of with the follo...
Parasram Asatkar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
WRIT PETITION No.21978/2011 27/08/2012 Lawyers are abstaining the work. Perused the record. 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.& 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.& 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 21/03/1983 19/4/1999, 02/11/2001 and 03/09/2005. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of with the f...
Hiramani Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
W.P.No.12458/2012 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 ...
Sumer Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
W.P.No.12518/2012 27.08.2012 Lawyers are abstaining the work. Record perused. The claim made by the petitioner in the present petition is that he has worked for a substantial time, but wages for the period of working were not paid to him. It is contended that in similar circumstances, some of the petitioners such as Arjun Prasad Mishra and others have approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No.13447 of 2006(S).which was decided vide order dated 27.9.2006. The order passed in the said writ petition was challenged in a Writ Appeal by the State Government before the Division Bench of this Court, being W.A.No.314/2007. The said Writ Appeal was heard along with other matters and in the case of Raj Rakhan Sukel & others versus State of M.P.& otheRs.W.P.No.8877/2006(S).a decision was rendered which was made applicable to all the cases. While holding that the order was rightly passed by the learned single Judge, it was directed that the matter be considered and if the persons have...
Keda Nath Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
W.P.No.12381/2012 27.08.2012 Lawyers are abstaining the work. Perused the record. 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 in the circular dated 21/03/1983 19/4/1999, 02/11/2001 and 03/09/2005. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of with the followi...
Kailash Nath Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
WRIT PETITION No.20110/20127. 08.2012 Lawyers are abstaining the work. Perused the record. This Court has already issued notices to the respondents vide order dated 07.12.2011. No response whatsoever has been filed, though the registered A.D.notices were sent to the respondents. The only claim made by the petitioners is that they have worked for certain period but have not been paid the salary for the aforesaid period. The District Education Officer, Singrauli, has directed payment of salary before the Deepawali of the last year vide his order dated 24.10.2011. In absence of any response, without entering into the merits of the writ petition, the same is disposed of with a direction to the District Education Officer, Singrauli, to look into the claims of the petitioners and if it is found that they have not been paid the salary for the period on which they have discharged the duties, the salary be paid to the petitioners within a month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »