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.
Dr.V.G.Kurup Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.10565/2004 24.09.2012 Shri P.N.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. Though the writ petition was entertained in the year 2004, opportunities and opportunities were granted to the respondents to seek instructions and file the return, yet such a return has not been filed. The only grievance of the petitioner is that his services rendered in the foreign university, though treated as services in the State and regularised, yet the benefit is not extended for counting of said period for grant of higher pay scale as is available under the Rules. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by a decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Sharadendu Bhusan versus Nagpur University & otheRs.AIR 198.SC 335. Considering the aforesaid, as a last opportunity, two weeks' time is allowed to learned Dy. Govt. Advocate to seek instructions and to...
Smt. Indubala Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.15525/2012 24.09.2012 Shri I.S.Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. 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 discu...
Shri Satish Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
24.09.2012. Shri Manish Upadhyay for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order-dated 10.9.2012, by which petitioner is transferred from Rajya Vigyan Shikshan Sansthan, Jabalpur to Government Higher Secondary School, Indrana, Jabalpur. Challenge to the order of transfer is made only on the ground of personal inconveniences of the petitioner and on the ground that petitioner is being shifted from one place to another intermittently. Petitioner is only shifted from one place to another in the same place Jabalpur. The grounds raised in the writ petition are not such on the basis of which judicial review of an administrative order of transfer can be made by this Court. Accordingly, finding no ground to interfere into the matter, the petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the departmental remedies available. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJEN...
Gulam Ahmad Vs. Municipal Corporation Singrouli
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.9662 o24. 09.12 Shri A.K.Pathak, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Mukesh Kumar Agarwal, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Arvind Pathak, counsel for respondent No.2 Shri P. Dharmadhikari, GA for respondent No.3 The petitioneRs.appellants/ plaintiffs have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 11.5.2011 (Annx.P/7) passed by District Judge, Waidhan in Civil Regular Appeal No.74- A/11 whereby the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act filed on behalf of respondent No.1 has been allowed and such appeal has been directed to be heard finally on merits. Counsel of respondent No.1 Shri Mukesh Kumar Agarwal by referring the provision of section 115 of the CPC said that on setting aside the impugned order by this court, the impugned Civil Regular Appeal could be dismissed and finally disposed of and, in such premises, the remedy of writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not available to the pe...
Jyotiprakash Namdeo Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.15535/2012 24.09.2012 Shri Neetesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned 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 mentioned in the c...
Arun JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Arun Jain versus State & Anr. W.P.No.16023/2012 24/09/2012 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pushpendra Kaurav, learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Food Supply Officer, Jabalpur and by the impugned order dated 13.7.2012, he has been transferred from Jabalpur to Bhind. During the couRs.of hearing of this writ petition, Shri V.K.Shukla emphasized that the petitioner has remained in Jabalpur for a long period of time and, therefore, he does not pray for cancellation of his transfer out of Jabalpur. However, pointing out certain family circumstances, petitioner has prayed for his posting in any district nearer to Jabalpur. Shri V.K.Shukla submitted that the petitioner has submitted a representation and the same is pending consideration. It is stated that the representation of the petitioner be considered and decision taken sympathetically, apart from the aforesaid, it is submitted that the petitioner does not pray for any furth...
Propietro Bhatia Hardware Vs. Shri Shri 1008 Jagat Guru Shankaracharya ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
S.A.No.995/2012 24.09.2012 Shri R.K.Verma and Ms.Preeti Khanna, learned counsel for the appellant. Ms.Neelam Goel, learned counsel for respondent. Heard on I.A.No.10557/2012, which is an application for stay. Let copy of appeal memo and I.A.No.10557/2012 be supplied to Ms.Geol during couRs.of the day. Until next date of listing, subject to depositing of arrears of rent within a month, if already not deposited, and to pay regular rent on or before 15th day of every month, execution of impugned judgment and decree shall remain stayed. In the meantime, record of two Courts below be called for. List in the month of November, 2012 for admission as well as for further orders on I.A.No.10557/2012. C.C.as per rules. (J.K.Maheshwari) Judge ts....
Babu Lal JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.16067/12 (s) 24/09/12 Shri A.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. In view of the fact that petitioner is claiming regularization and office of respondents is situated in Bhopal and in many other cases petitions have been entertained in Principal Seat by virtue of orders passed by the Honble Chief Justice, office objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction is over ruled. Petitioner is working as daily wages employee in the respondents department since 2.2.88 and has completed more than 10 years of service and regularization is claimed on the ground that juniors have been regularized and on the basis of the Circulars issued by the State Government on 16.5.2007 and 6.9.2008 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & ORS.versus Uma Devi & ORS. (2006).SCC 1 for considering the claim of employees for regularization. Keeping in view the aforesaid, respondents are dir...
Maan Kumari Vs. Baby Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.6717/2011 (Maan Kumari versus Baby Singh and otheRs.24.09.2012 Shri Prakash Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.K.Singh, learned counsel for the caveator. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. G.A.for the State. Heard. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed this petition against the act of the Commissioner, Rewa, Division Rewa in entertaining the revision filed by the respondents against the order passed by the Election Tribunal in an election petition filed under the provisions of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and rules framed thereunder and the same be disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner, Rewa, Division Rewa before whom the matter is pending to decide the revision as expeditiously, as possible including the objections raised by the petitioner regarding maintainability of the same, in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of w...
Vinay Kumar Rawat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.15869/2012 24/9/2012 Shri Vinay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioners were initially appointed as Shiksha Karmis under the Education Guarantee Scheme. Subsequently, the post was redesignated as Guruji.Order Annexure P-1 is the appointment order of the petitioneRs.It is seen from the records that a decision was taken by the State Govt. to appoint Guruji, Instructors and Supervisors on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III. and it was also decided to conduct an examination for appointment of the Shala Shikshak Grade-III amongst the Guruji, Instructors and Supervisors in accordance with the provisions contemplated under the M.P.Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and conditions of contract) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules of 2005).The rules stipulated a condition to the effect that a candidate to be entitled for appointment and qualifying the selection process should po...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »