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.
Madhya Pradesh Rajya Krishi Vipanan Board Vs. Dileep Singh Hada
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
M.P.Rajya Krishi Vipanan & Anr. versus Dileep Singh Hada & ORS.Review Petition No.632 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.9781/2012 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.2894/2011(s) on 18.2.2011, 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.2894/...
Durg Singh Cheedam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Durg sing v. state W.P.No.13969/2012 3/9/2012 : Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.7.2012 transferring the petitioner from Chhatarpur to Panna petitioner has filed this writ petition. Considering the fact that against the impugned order of transfer petitioner's representation is pending and the Superintending Engineer vide Annexure P/5 has recommended for canceling the transfer of the petitioner for the grounds indicated therein, for the present, without entering into the controveRs.on merits, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing certified copy of this order along with relevant documents, respondents shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. Till the representation is decided petitioner shall be permitted to work at his present place of posting. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ...
Smt. Sujala Bhalla Vs. Jawah Lal Nehru Krishi Vishvavidyalaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
WRIT PETITION No.4857/20103. 09.2012 Shri Vivek Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Naveen Dubey, learned Counsel for the respondents. The claim of the petitioner is only this much that her husband was in the employment of respondents, who died on 12.12.2006. When the application was made by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, she was informed that the petitioner cannot be granted compassionate appointment. On the other hand, as per the scheme adopted by the respondents, petitioner would be paid the salary, which the employee/officer has last drawn for a period of five yeaRs.In case such a proposal is accepted, the orders would be passed. The petitioner has accepted such a proposal vide Annexure P-3. The matter has been referred to the higher authority, yet no final decision is taken and the representation dated 11.01.2012 made by the petitioner is not decided, therefore, this writ petition is filed. It is fairly stated by learned Counsel appearing for t...
Mohanlal Khare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
03.09.2012. Shri Rajendra Shrivastava for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as Patwari of Patwari Halka No.79/85/98, Revenue Circle Parsoriya, District Sagar. By the impugned order-dated 13.7.2012 Annexure P/3, petitioner has been transferred to Tehsil Bina. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioner is an elected office bearer of the MP Patwari Union, Sagar Branch and as Clause 9.23 of the transfer policy Annexure P/1 dated 1.5.2012 prohibits transfer of an office bearer of the elected association, the transfer is illegal. Petitioner is office bearer and is elected as President of the District Union and in transferring the petitioner from one Tehsil to another, there is no change in the District of the petitioner. That apart, transfer in question is challenged only on the ground of breach of transfer policy and in view of the law laid down in the case of R.S.Chaudhary v...
Laxmi Bai Chakrawarti Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
1 Writ Appeal No.750/20103. 09.2012 Shri Amit Patel, Advocate for the appellant. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Deputy Advocate General, for the respond- ent no.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant who had earlier sought exemption from payment of court fees vide application, I.A.No.7836/2012 has not deposited the court fees and the aforesaid application may be disposed of accordingly. As court fees has already been paid by the appellant, I.A.No.7836/2012 has rendered infructuous and is accordingly disposed of. I.A.No.8536/2012. By this application the appellant is filing a statement on re- cord that no notice of lodging a caveat by the opposite party was re- ceived by him. The aforesaid statement is taken on record. I.A.No.8536/2012 is disposed of finally. This appeal is directed against an order dated 4.5.2012 passed in W.P.No.21821/2011 by which petitioners petition for issuing dir- ections against the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, for payment of compensation because ...
Keshav Prasad Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Keshav Prasad Pandey versus State & ORS.W.P.No.14195/2012 04/09/2012 Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Bohre, learned PL for the respondents. Heard. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of orders passed under similar circumstances in the case of an employee Surendra Kumar Gupta, similar treatment is denied to the petitioner. Petitioner claims grant of appointment on the post of Lab Assistant in accordance with the circulars and policy of the State Government and brings to the notice of this Court an order dated 14.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.19116/2003 (Annexure-P4) in which initially in the case of one Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta, certain directions were issued by this Court and subsequently in Contempt Petition No.1090/2009, certain orders were passed on 16.5.2012 (Annexure-P6) and in pursuant thereto relief was granted to Surendra Kumar Gupta vide order (Annexure-P7).petitioner claims similar benefit. Keeping in view the aforesaid grounds raised by the...
Ramniwas Singh Tomer Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
W.P.No.12451/2012 03.09.2012 Shri R.S.Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has come before this Court against the order dated 18.07.2012 passed by the respondent by which the minot penalty of recovery has been imposed on the petitioner. Admittedly, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner under Rule 16 of the M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,1966 (hereinafter referred to as Rules) and after conducting an enquiry as is prescribed in summary manner, the order impugned was passed. A statutory remedy of appeal is provided under the said Rule, but instead of filing an appeal, straightway the writ petition has been filed. Normally, this Court will not entertained the writ petition, if it is filed without resorting to the statutory remedy. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed permission to file the statutory appeal and submit that since the period of limitation of filing of such an appeal has expired, he m...
Rajkumar Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
W.P.No.14121/2012 03.09.2012 Shri Shakti K. Soni, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents on advance copy. 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 discussion, the appeal filed by writ petitions succe...
Jagdish Pal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Jagdish Pal versus State & ORS.W.P.No.14159/2012 04/09/2012 Shri Devesh Bhojne, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Bohre, learned PL on advance notice for the respondents/State. Challenging the suspension of the petitioner and the order Annexure-P6 dated 24.2.2012, rejecting his appeal on the ground of delay, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner is working as Pump Attendant in Government Polytechnic College, Khirsadoh, Tehsil-Paradiya, District- Chhindwara. Vide order dated 2.5.2011 passed by the Collector Chhindwara, petitioner was placed under suspension, petitioner continued to be under suspension for a period of more than 80 days and after a period of 80 days, a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner, however, it is pointed out that the charge-sheet is not served in accordance with requirement of Rule 9(2-a) and (2-b) of M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and it was incomplete and the particulars and documents pertaining to t...
Kishori Lal Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
W.P.No.13613/2012 (Kishorilal Sahuversus State of MP and otheRs.03.09.2012 Heard Shri A.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the respondents/ authorities on the application filed by the petitioner under Right to Information Act . It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority is not taking any action on the appeal filed by the petitioner. It is however, apparent from a perusal of the record that the petitioner has never personally approached either of the two authorities i.e.the original or the appellate authority not has he filed any order sheet in this respect. As the matter is already pending before the competent authority, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the matter already pending before the authority. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands di...
- ‹ Prev
- 149
- 150
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 156
- 157
- 158
- 159
- Next ›
- Last »