Madhya Pradesh Court August 2012 Judgments
Dwarika Prasad Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
M.C.C.No.252/2012 31.08.2012 Shri J.N.Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. This MCC has been filed for restoration of Writ Petition No.8454/2011, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 6.1.2012 as none appeared for the petitioner. The reasons of non-appearance on the date have been explained in the application. Considering the aforesaid fact, the MCC is allowed. Writ Petition No.8454/2011 be restored to its original number and be listed before the appropriate Bench for hearing. MCC stands disposed of accordingly. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj....
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Bafati Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
31.8.2012 W.P.No.17324/2010 (s) Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.P.Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioners on the post of Forest Guard from the date when other candidates have been appointed and to accord them all consequential benefits. The petitioners had participated in the process of recruitment which was held for the post of Forest Guard. The petitioners were selected and an order of appointment was issued to them by the respondent No.4 on 31.8.2010. However, the petitioners were denied the joining on the ground that the State Government has stayed appointment on the post of Forest Guards vide order dated 8.9.2010. However, subsequently the aforesaid ban imposed by the State Government was lifted vide order dated 1.10.2010. During the pendency of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramniwas Singh Tomar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
W.P.No.11544/2012 31.08.2012 Shri R.S.Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. The order under challenge is passed in exercise of power under Rule 10 (3) of the M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as Rules).Though a minot penalty of recovery was imposed on the petitioner, but the said order of penalty is appealable under Rule 23 of the Rules aforesaid before the Appellate Authority. No appeal has been filed by the petitioner against the said order. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to resort to the remedy of appeal within a period of 15 days from today. If such an appeal is preferred by the petitioner, the same will be considered expeditiously on merits and will not be thrown over board, only on the grounds of limitation. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...
Tag this Judgment!Ashish Kumar Atre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
W.P.No.10809/2012 31.08.2012 Shri Nitin Gupta, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathal, Dy. A.G.for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate present in Court appears for respondent No.3 and accepts notice. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already served a copy of the petition for respondent No.6 to the instructing counsel of Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Senior Advocate. Issue notice to the respondents. Steps within a period of one week by R.A.D.Interim Relief: Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in an identical case W.P.No.13658/2011 (Bharti Zarbade versus The State of M.P.and others).a Division Bench of this Court has issued directions and similar directions may be issued in this petition. In the case of Bharti Zarbade (supra) a Division Bench of this Court on 20.12.2011 issued following directions:- "20-12-2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the controveRs.involved in this petition regarding valid...
Tag this Judgment!Suner Singh Kumre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
WRIT PETITION No.13887/20131. 08.2012 Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Ms.D.K.Bohre, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents-State. Heard on the question of admission. 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 certa...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
WRIT PETITION No.13586/20131. 08.2012 Shri Ravendra Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State. The only grievance of the petitioner is that a Revenue Recovery Certificate has been issued by the competent authority for recovery of the claims of the petitioner from the respondent No.2 and the said revenue recovery proceedings are pending consideration before the Collector, Rewa for a long period. Though there is no stay or any other restraint to execute the Revenue Recovery Certificate but a long period has lapsed and still the recovery has not been made. The representation to this effect was made but as nothing was done by the respondent No.3, the writ petition is required to be filed. This Court has observed in many of the cases that in case Revenue Recovery Certificate is issued by the competent Labour Court or other authorities, it is the responsibility of the recovering authority to make the recovery of t...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Anamika Tiwari Vs. Smt. Geeta Choudhary
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
R.P.No.532/2012 31.08.2012 Shri Amit Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Ms.Preeti Khanna, learned counsel for the respondents. Instead of considering the I.A.No.7558/2012 for condonation of delay, the review petition on merit itself is examined. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the evidence produced before the Court below was reappreciated by the revisional Court and, thereby an error apparent on the face of record was committed as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case Masjid Kacha Tank, Nahan versus Tuffail Mohammed AIR 199.SC 455. On consideration of the factual aspects as recorded in the order under review, it is seen that the material evidence was never looked into or considered by the Court below and, therefore, this particular aspect was noted by this Court. It cannot be said that it was a case of re-appreciation of evidence. Therefore, such contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. There i...
Tag this Judgment!Omprakash Dubey Vs. Khubee
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
WP No.13486 o31. 08.2012 Shri A. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner defendant No.2 has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 19.7.2012 passed by the 13th Civil Judge, Class-II, Parasiya in C.S.No.27-A/2012 dismissing his application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed for dismissal of the suit of respondent Nos.1 to 6 as barred by time. In the couRs.of arguments on asking the petitioner's counsel that the document on which the petitioner relies which has been mentioned in the impugned application of Order 7 Rule 11 has been proved on record by admissible evidence, on which he fairly conceded that the stage of evidence has not come in the matter as the impugned suit is fixed for framing the issues in the light of pleadings of the parties. Again on asking the petitioner's counsel that without framing the issue and proving the concerning document stated in the a...
Tag this Judgment!Jeewandas Gawle Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
W.P.No.13655/2012 31.08.2012 Shri V.K.Shukla, 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 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 forego...
Tag this Judgment!Ramswaroop Chadhar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
WRIT PETITION No.13569/20131. 08.2012 Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. By this writ petition the petitioner has claimed a direction against the respondents to grant him the benefit of seniority for the period when he has worked on daily wages. It is contended that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages as Sub Engineer on 02.12.1987 but was regularized with effect from 31.08.1996. The seniority of the petitioner is being counted from the date of regularization, therefore, the respondents are liable to be commanded to grant the benefit of seniority to the petitioner with effect from 02.12.1987. Such a claim of the petitioner cannot be granted in view of the fact that the law is well settled that in case the recruitment is not made by following the procedure laid-down under the recruitment rules, the benefit of such back door entry cannot be extended to the employee concerned. The period of regular appointment is to be tr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »