Madhya Pradesh Court September 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.
Rajendra Chhaochharia Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
1 W.P No.12038/2010 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.12038/2010 PETITIONER : RAJENDRA CHHAOCHHARIA Vs. RESPONDENTS : UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner : Shri Manot Sharma and Shri Parag Tiwari, Advocate. For the respondents : Shri N. S. Ruprah, Advocate. WRIT PETITION NO.6473/2011 PETITIONER : SUNIL KUMAR DUBEY Vs. RESPONDENTS : UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. WRIT PETITION NO.9243/2011 PETITIONER : RAJ RAJESHWARI ENTERPRISES Vs. RESPONDENTS : UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioners : Shri Manot Sharma and Shri Parag Tiwari, Advocate. For the respondents : Shri Govind Patel, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha. ORDER (25/09/2012) The facts and issues involved in these three petitions being identica...
Vishwanath Tiwari Vs. Shri Shyam Narayan Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
Vishwanath Tiwari & ORS.versus Shri Shyam Narayan Sharma Conc. No.1348 25. 9.2012: Shri R.N.Viswakarma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent. Interalia contending that two advance increments for having passed the B.T.I./B.Ed. qualification has No. been granted to the petitioner, the writ petition was filed before this Court. On the very first date of hearing without notice to the respondents, taking note of certain directions issued in the case of Dwarkesh versus State of M.P. and another 2004(1) MPLJ 261 the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the claim of petitioners for grant of two advance increments in the light of law laid down in the case of Dwarkesh (supra) and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months. No. from the return filed by respondents it is seen that vide Annexure R1 dated 2.7.2012 orders ...
Brijendra Singh Baghel Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
W.P.No.22694/2003 25.09.2012 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State. Shri Pradeep Dwivedi, learned counsel for the intervener. An adoptive return has been filed by the respondents in the present writ petition, adopting the return filed in Writ Petition No.1098/2003 which has already been disposed of vide order dated 29.04.2008. However, it is contended that the same would be the stand in the present writ petition. Since the additional return has already been filed, it is contended that it will be sufficient to meet out the submissions made by the petitioneRs.Looking to the aforesaid, list the petition along with W.P.No.22704/2003 in the week commencing 19th November, 2012. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...
Smt.Prabhawati Mehra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
25.09.2012. Shri Devesh Khatri for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State. Petitioner is working as an ANM in Sub Health Center Gotitoriya, Salichauka, District Narsinghpur. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Narsinghpur passed an order on 14.7.2012 Annexure P/1, transferring the petitioner to Sub Health Center Siregaon, in Salichauka. In pursuance to the same petitioner was relieved vide Annexure P/2. Grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 the Block Medical Officer is not permitting the petitioner to join on the transferred place. Keeping in view the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner, it is directed that on the petitioners filing a certified copy of this order alongwith relevant documents, respondent No.3 The Chief Medical and Health Officer, and respondent No.2 The Joint Director, Department of Health Services, Jabalpur Division, shall look into the grievance of the petitioner and issue necessary directions in the matter of post...
Ratan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
Ratan Singh versus State & Anr. W.P.No.15763/2012 25/09/2012 Shri Shakti Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. The order impugned Annexure-P1 dated 4th of August, 2012 has been passed by the disciplinary authority, exercising the powers conferred upon him under the M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1966 and a punishment for misconduct has been imposed. The action has been taken after following procedure contemplated under Rule 14 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Against the order passed, petitioner may file an appeal as contemplated under Rule 23 of the Rules and, therefore, a petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs.to the remedy of appeal available under Rule 23 is not proper. Accordingly, on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with memorandum of appeal before the competent statutory appellate authority within a period of one month from today, the competent appellate authority shall decide the appeal in accor...
Rajkumar Pyasi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
W.P.No.15425/12 25/09/12 Shri Vinay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner is working as a 'Panchayat Secretary' and was transferred. Petitioner challenged the transfer by approaching this Court in W.P.No.11743/12. The petition was withdrawn with a liberty to approach the Commissioner, Rewa Division and, therefore, on 1/08/12, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, it seems that petitioner filed an appeal under Section 91 of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and Rule 3 of the M.P.Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 and the Commissioner vide order Annexure P-7 dated 8/08/12 has held that transfer of the panchayat employee is an administrative action and it is not subject to statutory appeal and revision rules and dismissed the appeal. Petitioner is again before this Court assailing the order of Commissioner. Shri S.S.Bisen and Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearin...
Avtar Singh Markam Vs. Shri R.K. Swai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
Avtar Singh Markam versus Shri R.K.Swai & Anr. Conc. No.147 25. 9.2012: Shri K.N.Pethia, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Brijesh Mishra, learned counsel for non-applicants. Applicant was appointed as Hand-Pump Mechanic in the pay-scale Rs.3500-80-4000-100-5200/-. After his appointment in the aforesaid pay-scale it is seen that his pay was reduced and, therefore, challenging the order reducing his pay writ petition was filed. More than 10 writ petitions was disposed of by a common order passed on 28.9.2010, order passed reducing pay-scale was quashed and respondents/State was directed to pay salary in the minimum of pay as notified in the pay-scale and on which appointments were made i.e.pay-scale Rs.3500-5200/- contending that the orders being not complied with this application has been filed. Shri Brijesh Mishra, learned counsel for the non- applicants have filed the reply and has brought on record order Annexure R-2 dated 31.5.2012 which indicates that against the order passe...
Mrs Alpna Vinjola Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
Alpna Vinjola versus State & Anr. W.P.No.16156/2012 25/09/2012 Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as a Sub-Engineer in the Tribal Department and has been transferred from Bhopal to Bhind. Petitioner claims to be a destitute woman living separately and it is stated that if the petitioner is posted in an area like Bhind, it would create serious difficulties to the petitioner and on the ground that the representation is submitted and the same is not considered, petitioner is before this Court. Grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is transferred in a place like Bhind. The aforesaid grievance of the petitioner is to be considered by the competent authority of the department and a decision taken. For the present it is not appropriate for this Court to interfere into the matter. However, taking note of the grievance of the petitioner, prima-facie, it seems that the same warrants sympathetic consideration. Accordingly, it is directed that ...
Ranjit Singh Bhalavi Vs. Shri D.K. Samentere
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
25.09.2012. Shri Ajay Shukla for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the non-applicants. Applicant was working as a Male Counsellor/Feeding Demonstrator in Nutrition Rehabilitation Center established under the National Rural Health Mission. The State of Madhya Pradesh took a decision to engage Female Counsellors and Female Demonstrators only, as a result the contract appointment of the applicant was terminated. Action taken throughout the State was challenged and the Gwalior Bench of this Court, in the case of Hemant Nagar and others versus State of MP and others [Writ Petition No:2945/2011(s)]., and the Indore Bench in the case of Sajid Khan and others versus State of MP and others [Writ Petition No.10550/2010]., quashed the advertisement for filling up 100% posts through women candidates and directed the State Government to reconsider the matter Petitions were thereafter filed and the Government took a policy decision indicating that under the National Rural H...
Lalit Krishna Awasthy Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition(S) No.968/2003 Lalit Krishna Awasthy Vs State of M.P.and otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri Arun Shukla learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. ORDER (25.9.2012) The grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Sub Engineer on 7.7.1965 and had completed 20 years of service in the year 1985 and was, thus, entitled to grant of higher pay scale as was prescribed by the State Government, on completion of 20 years of service. Instead of granting the said benefit from the aforesaid date, by order dated 25.6.2003 Annx.P/1, it was stated that the petitioner would get the benefit of higher pay scale with effect from 14.12.2000 and not with retrospective effect when it become due on completion of 20 years services. It is contended that such an order was erroneously issued, inasmuc...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »