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.
Siya Ram Parasher Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
WRIT PETITION No.13909/20103. 09.2012 Shri Aniruddha Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Government Advocate, for the respondents-State. Heard on the question of admission. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the services rendered by him in the Local Body has not been considered for grant of pension treating it to be a qualifying service. It is stated by Mr. Aniruddha Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised has already been decided by this Court in W.P. No.4919/2003 (Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others) and other similar connected writ petitions decided on 27.11.2003 holding that the period spent in Janpad Sabha/Municipal Bodies has to be counted as pensionable service. It is conceded at bar that matter is similar as decided in W.P. No.4919/2003 (Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others) and other connected matters on 27.11.2003 by this Court. This Court has passed the following order : In these wri...
Pawan Singh Chouhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
03.09.2012. Shri Rajesh Dubey for the petitioneRs.Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate, for the State/respondents. Shri Vivek Agrawal and Shri Sanjay Singh for the interveneRs.Challenging the fresh process of selection initiated for appointment on the post of Block Resource Centre Coordinators (hereinafter referred to as BRCC) and contending that petitioneRs.who are on deputation, should be permitted to work, this writ petition has been filed. Even though various grounds are raised in the writ petition, but on going through the objections filed by Shri Sanjay Singh, Counsel for Intervener Phool Chandra Singh, it is seen that the question involved in this writ petition pertains to right of persons, like the petitioneRs.to continue on the deputed post as has already been decided by a Bench of this Court on 31.1.2012, in Writ Petition No.7882/2010(S) [Rajnish Kumar Tripathi versus State of MP and others].It has been found by this Court that persons like the petitioneRs.who are o...
Jeevan Singh Bhadoria Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
W.P.No.7833/2012 (J.S.Bhadoriya versus State of MP and otheRs.03.09.2012 Heard Shri R.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondents to shift the temple constructed in the Police Academy Ground, Sagar and to take action against the encroachers with a further direction to transfer all the rights of the committee who manage the temple, to respondent No.13 of which the petitioner is a member. From a perusal of the documents it is apparent that the steps are being taken by the Collector under his supervision and guidance in public interest to manage the temple and the petitioner infact wants to exclude some persons appointed in the management committee. In the circumstances, I find no reason to entertain the present petition which is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Collector for mitigation of his grievance, in case so advised. With the a...
Balmik Prasad Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
W.P.No.13676/2012 03.09.2012 Shri V.P.Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents/State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. 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 mentio...
Madhya Pradesh Rajya Krishi Vipanan Board Vs. Gajanan Jaltare
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
M.P.Rajya Krishi Vipanan & Anr. versus Gajanan Jaltare & ORS.Review Petition No.638 3. 9.2012 Shri Naman Nagrath, learned counsel with Shri Sanjeev Mishra, counsel for the applicant. Shri A.K.Shukla, learned counsel for non-applicant No.1. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for non- applicant Nos.2 & 3. I.A.No.9766/2012 is filed for amendment in the cause title. Application is allowed. Amendment be incorporated within a week. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant that while disposing of the Writ Petition No.3949/2011(s) on 3.3.2011, this Court directed the respondents (in the writ petition) to grant the same benefits, as has been granted to Shri Hiramani Sharma by virtue of order passed by this Court in various writ petitions. It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that in various similar writ petitions the case of employees were screened and thereafter benefit was granted, whereas in the present case non-applicant No.1 (Petitioner in W.P.No.3949/201...
Rakesh Kumar Khampariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Rakesh Kumar Khampariya versus State & ORS.Review Petition No.688 3. 9.2012 Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Senior Advocate with Sanjeev Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State. Keeping in view the orders passed by this Court in various writ petitions collectively filed as Annexure P-5 from page No.36 to 45 the order passed in the case of petitioner on 23.7.2012 in W.P.No.10868/2012 is prayed to be modified. In view of above, the order passed in W.P.No.10868/2012 on 23.7.2012 is modified and it is directed that, if petitioner had submitted representation on any other ground administrative in nature which are to be considered by competent authority of State Government, the competent authority shall consider and decide the representation in accordance to law after hearing all concerned by a speaking order within four weeks. Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed, status-quo in the matter of working and posting of petition...
Shabbir UddIn Usmani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
W.P.No.14148/2012 03.09.2012 Shri James Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents on advance copy. 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...
Ku.Shraddha BaIn Vs. Director General of Police Head
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
03.09.2012. Petitioner in person. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate, for the State/respondents. Even though time has been granted to the respondents to file reply since 27.7.2012, but till date reply has not been filed by them. Looking to the nature of the controveRs.involved in the matter, the petition is being heard and decided at this stage without granting any further time to file reply. Petitioner was a candidate who had appeared in the selection process conducted for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector. Petitioner passed the written examination and was subjected to certain medical examination for assessing her physical standards. According to the petitioner, the recruitment rule contemplates that a candidate to be appointed should have a height of 152.4 cMs.In the physical examination conducted with regard to examination of height of the petitioner on 19.12.2011, it seems that on measurement the height of the petitioner was shown to be 152 cms and, therefore, sh...
Shriram Samele Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Shriram Samele versus State W.P.No.13758/2012 3/9/2012 : Shri I.K.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as a Assistant Teacher and by the impugned order dated 14.7.2012 he has been transferred from E.G.S., Manpura, District Tikamgarh to Primary School Sahguwan in the same District. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioner has joined at the present place only nine months back and therefore, his transfer before completing the normal tenure is unsustainable. Ventilating the same grievance, petitioner has already submitted his representation to the competent authority and representation is still pending. Keeping in view the aforesaid, for the present, without entering into the controveRs.on merits, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing certified copy of this order, the competent authority shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner withi...
Smt. Pushpa Sharma Vs. Shri Maneesh Shrivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Smt. Pushpa Sharma versus Shri Maneesh Shrivastava Conc. No.2044 3. 9.2012 Shri R.B.Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for non-applicant. It is common ground that the claim has been settled, but interest in accordance to directions issued by this Court on 18.12.2008 in W.P.No.1379/2007 (s) have not been paid. Keeping in view the financial condition of non-applicant and totality of circumstances, for the present, it is not appropriate for this Court to initiate action for contempt only because there is some delay in payment of interest. On the contrary, it would be appropriate to grant some more time to the non-applicant to pay interest. Keeping in view the aforesaid, for the present, without initiating action for contempt, non-applicant is directed to pay interest to the applicant in accordance to directions issued in the writ petition within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid th...
- ‹ Prev
- 149
- 150
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 155
- 156
- 157
- 158
- 159
- Next ›
- Last »