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.
Suresh Prasad Pal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
1 Writ Petition No.12268/2012 24.08.2012 Shri Rajesh Patel, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents on advance notice. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the controveRs.involved in this case is covered by the judgment of Apex Court in Asha Saxena versus 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 controveRs.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...
V.N. Singh Vs. M.P. State Agriculture Board Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
1 W.P.No.13656/12 (s) 24/08/12 Shri Mukesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is working as a 'Secretary' in the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and vide impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 9/08/12, petitioner has been suspended. Inter alia contending that petitioner's brother had contested certain election and respondent No.3 an M.L.A was annoyed because of this, he has made a complaint against the petitioner and by attributing malafides on the part of the petitioner, recommended for suspension of the petitioner. A perusal of the order of suspension indicates that while discharging duties of the 'Mandi Secretary', petitioner is alleged to have violated various rules and regulations and granted undue benefit to farmers and, as a result, a disciplinary action is contemplated against him and he was suspended. Pending departmental enquiry on allegations of misuse of powers and misappropriation of funds, merely on the groun...
Ku. Anita Rajput Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :8441. Of 2012 (s) Ku. Anita Rajput V/s State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Shri P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.6. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER 24.8.2012 Challenging order Annexure P-1 dated 21.5.2012 passed by the Commissioner Sagar Division allowing the appeal filed by respondent No.6 Smt. Kamla Singh and setting aside appointment of the petitioner on the post of Aanganwadi Worker, as is directed by the Collector in his appellate order Annexure P-5 dated 22.3.2010, petitioner has filed this writ petition.2. An advertisement was issued for filling up post of Aanganwadi Worker in ...
R.L. Manu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
R.L.Manu versus State & ors.W.P.No.13162/2012 24/08/2012 Shri P.N.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable in four weeks. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is being transferred frequently and had joined at Raisen only after orders were passed by this Court on 9.5.2011 in W.P.No.7430/2011, transfer of the petitioner not within a short period of one year, prima-facie, seems to be unsustainable. In view of the above, operation of the order Annexure-P1 dated 13.7.2012 is directed to be stayed till the next date of listing and petitioner permitted to work in the office of Chief Medical & Health Officer Raisen till the next date of listing. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Smt.S.Goyal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Smt.S.Goyal versus State & ors.W.P.No.13167/2012 24/08/2012 Shri V.D.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Keeping in view the order passed on 7.8.2012 in W.P.No.11101/2012 (Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi versus State & ors.) and considering the fact that till the decision in the representation of Shri Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, his transfer has been stayed and the place where the petitioner is to be posted is not vacant in pursuance to certain interim orders passed by this Court, the competent authority is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner also in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.11101/2012 and till then, petitioner be permitted to work at her present place of posting. While considering the representation of the petitioner, recommendations made by the Minister In-charge of the district cancelling the transfer of the petitioner be also taken note of by the competent authority. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of. Certified Copy...
S.K. Chaturvedi Vs. R.K. Dabe
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Conc. No.547/2012 24/8/2012 : Shri O.P.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioner filed a writ petition and it was the complaint of the petitioner in the writ petition that a departmental enquiry was pending against him since 2004 and as departmental enquiry was not being completed he sought interference into the matter. When the petition came up for hearing on 19.12.2011 without issuing notice to the respondents on the basis of the statement made by learned counsel for the parties this Court by clearly indicating that without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and without adverting to consider the rival contentions the disciplinary authority was directed to conclude the enquiry expeditiously keeping in mind the order passed in similar departmental enquiry in the case of Shri G.P.Sarathe and others whose name was indicated in the original writ petition. Enquiry was directed to be completed within three mon...
Prashant Kumar Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
1 W.P.No.11907/2012 P.K.Gupta versus State of M.P.& ORS.23.08.2012 Heard Shri Sourabh Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the police authorities on the complaint filed by the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the police is duty bound to register a criminal case on receiving a complaint, therefore, in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Ramlal KuMr.versus State of M.P.and OtheRs.W.A No.401/2011, they be directed to do so. I have perused the petition filed by the petitioner and it appears that there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.5 which relates to and originates from an agreement for purchase of land situated in Village Murpar, Tehsil Rithi, District Katni and the petitioner has filed the present complaint against the respondents as an off-shoot of the said ...
Rohit Pradhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
W.P.No.12743/12 24/08/12 Shri Munish Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and contending that the request made by the petitioner for supplying certain documents has been rejected by respondent No.2 Bank and respondent No.2 without supplying the relevant documents has threatened for initiation of enquiry vide order Annexure P-8 dated 24/07/12, petitioner has filed this writ petition. The petition is against an inter locutory order passed in a pending departmental proceedings, when a departmental proceedings is initiated against an employee and when certain request is made by the employee in the pending departmental enquiry, a writ court exercising jurisdiction in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not supposed to interfere at an inter locutory stage and interfere at all such stages. A Writ Court is supposed to interfere into the matter o...
Lalit Kishore Choure Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Lalit Kishore Choure versus State & ors.W.P.No.13168/2012 24/08/2012 Shri Arun Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable in four weeks. Considering the fact that the petitioner is to retire within a short period of less than 11 months in the month of July 2013, transfer of the petitioner at the fag end of career, prima-facie, seems to be not sustainable. In view of the above, operation of the order of transfer Annexure-P1 dated 13.7.2012, so far as it relates to the petitioner is directed to be stayed till the next date of listing. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Anil Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Anil Shrivastava versus State W.P.No.12904/2012 24/08/2012 Shri Dinesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable in four weeks. Considering the fact that the petitioner was sent on deputation only about a year back and not within a short period of one year, earlier order was withdrawn and petitioner is sent again to another office, operation of the order Annexure-P1 dated 19.6.2012 is directed to stayed till the next date of listing and petitioner permitted to work in the office of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Bhopal till the next date of listing. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
- ‹ Prev
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- Next ›
- Last »