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.
Vijay Pawar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
W.P.No.12400/2012 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...
Dr.(Smt.) R.B. Kushwaha Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
W.P.No.11401/2004 27.08.2012 Lawyers are abstaining the work. I.A.No.11021/2012 has been filed seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition. It is contended that on account of superannuation of the petitioner with effect from 28.02.2011, when she made a representation for grant of retiral dues, the same was considered and the impugned order dated 13.10.2004 has been withdrawn by the respondents vide order dated 04.08.2012. Since the claim of the petitioner has been settled, therefore, she is not willing to prosecute the writ petition. Considering the averments made in the application, the same is allowed. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...
Bramha Dev Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
M.Cr.C.No.1938/12. 27.8.2012 None for either of the parties. On call of the State Bar Council of M.P., the Advocates are abstained from the work. In compliance of order dated 9.7.2012 this matter is listed today for consideration of PUD No.3559/11, but in view of Office report that requisite information about adjudication of the impugned case on or before 31.7.2012, has not been received from the trial Court. Such report is still awaited. Let the same be requisitioned within 10 days from the concerning Court of Rewa, and this matter be listed under the same head for further orders in this regard in the week commencing 10.9.2012. Till then the interim order passed on last date of hearing is herby continued. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge Pb...
Smt.Kiran Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
W.P.No.13206/12 (s) 27/08/12 Petitioner in person. Petitioner is working as an 'Asstt. Teacher' in Govt. Primary School, Udaipur, Distt. Satna. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground of ailment of the petitioner's husband and certain other personal inconveniences. That apart, challenge is also made to the posting of the petitioner on the ground that adjustment is being granted. Keeping in view the order passed by a Bench of this Court under similar circumstances in W.P.No.12170/12 (s) Smt. Taruna Singh versus State of M.P.and others , it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the representation submitted in this regard, respondents shall consider the representation and decide it in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by a reasoned order. Till the representation submitted by the petitioner is not decided by the com...
Preeti Barkade Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
Preeti Barkude versus State W.P.No.13193/2012 27/8/2012 : Petitioner in person. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F.within one week returnable in four weeks. Considering the fact that petitioner was posted at the present place only in 2010 and had joined in June 2010, her transfer not within a short period of less than two years prima facie seems to be unsustainable. In view of the above, operation of the order Annexure P/1 dated 14.7.2012 so far as it relates to the petitioner is directed to be stayed till the next date and petitioner permitted to work at her present place of posting at Katni till the next date. c.c.as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Mr.mishra...
Shobhnath Prasad Kori Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
W.P.No.12525/2012 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...
Narendra Prasad Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
W.P.No.12495/2012 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...
Ram Singh Bachhania Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
W.P.No.12410/2012 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...
Surendra Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Surendra Kumar Jain & others versus State and others W.P.No.12242/2012 24/08/2012 Shri Ajeet Kumar Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. GA 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 discu...
Jeevanlal Chouhan Vs. Ashish Upadhyay
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Jeevan Lal Chauhan versus Ashish Upadhyay Con.C.No.1288/2009 24/08/2012 Shri Arpan J.Pawar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Purushaindra Kaurav, learned counsel for the non- applicant. Non-applicant has produced an order dated 30th of July, 2012 indicating that orders have been passed by the competent authority for granting benefit to the applicant in accordance with directions issued by the Writ Court. However, learned counsel for the applicant points out that the order has been passed but the actual financial benefits have not been conferred on the applicant. Non-applicant is directed to show as to in what manner, directions issued by this Court have been complied with and when the actual financial benefits is extended to the applicant. Let an appropriate affidavit in this regard be filed within four weeks. List the matter, thereafter, for ordeRs.(Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »