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. Mrigendra Singh Baghel Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
WRIT PETITION No.6369/20124. 09.2012 Smt. Shobha Menon, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.Surabhi Ahirkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The claim made by the petitioner in this petition is with respect to the continuance of service up to the age of 65 years on account of recommendations made by the U.G.C.It is contended that the recommendations are binding on the University but the petitioner has been retired at the age of 62 years on 30th November, 2010. In similar circumstances, in other cases, interim protection has been granted. The same protection would be applicable in the present case for the petitioner mutatis mutandis. Let this petition be listed along with W.P.No.8646/2011. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc...
Ramnath Kausal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.15117/2012 24.09.2012 Shri Deepak Raghuwanshi, 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. Petitioners are 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 i...
Ku. Prabal Gupta Vs. the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.14883 / 2012 (Ku. Prabal Gupta Vs..The Board of Secondary Education, M.P., Bhoipal and another) 24-09-2012 Shri Deepak Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned counsel for the respondent/Board. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for revaluation of her answer sheets in the subject of Social Science in the Xth Board Examination, held by the respondent/Board for the year 2011-12. Having examined the answer sheet which has been filed by the petitioner alongwith the petition and the issue raised by the petitioner, it is apparent that the petitioner has not been able to point out any glaring mistake in the evaluation of her answer sheet warranting interference of this Court. In the circumstances, in the absence of any provision for revaluation and in view of the decision of this Court rendered in the cases of M.P.Board of Secondary Education and another versus Ku. Vinita Rupra, 1998 (1) MPLJ 59 and Pranshu Indurkhya (minor) versus State of...
Smt. Mary Kutty Michel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.10086/2006(s) Smt. Mary Kutty Michel. Vs State of M.P.and otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri Dilip Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Brindawan Tiwari, Adv.for respondent No.4. ORDER (24.9.2012) The grievance of the petitioner is that she submitted a resignation letter before the respondent No.4, but as the school was already taken over by the State Government, the resignation of the petitioner was not to be accepted by the Society. The petitioner made a prayer for withdrawal of the resignation, but it was not allowed alleging that the same has already been accepted by the President of the Society, running the school and the petitioner was not permitted to work in the school thereafter. Though for some period, she was allowed to continue, but no action was taken for absorption of services of the petitioner in the Government ...
Raja Ram Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
24.09.2012. Shri S.P.Sharma alongwith Shri K.K.Pandey for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Grade III in the office of Executive Engineer, Narmada Development, Division No.4, Jabalpur and by the impugned order-dated 13.7.2012, passed by the Director (Administration) respondent No.2, petitioner has been transferred from Jabalpur to Katni in the same capacity. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioner is to retire in the year 2014 and, therefore, the transfer is unsustainable. That apart, it is stated that certain duties with regard to Census 2011 was entrusted to the petitioner, he is only nominated as a Booth Level Officer by the Election Commission and, therefore, the petition is unsustainable. It is also pointed out that there is no administrative necessity in transferring the petitioner, many persons who have had longer stay in Jabalpur are not transferre...
Rakesh Shah Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Rakesh Shah & ORS.versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.16074 24. 9.2012: Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State, on advance notice. The grievance of petitioners is that inspite of orders passed under similar circumstances in the case of an employee Surendra Kumar Gupta, similar treatment is denied to the petitioneRs.Petitioners claim 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 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 16.5.20012 and in pursuance thereto relief was granted to Surendra Kumar Gupta, petitioners claim similar benefit. Keeping in view the aforesaid grounds raised by the petitioners...
Amarjeet Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Writ Petition No.8481/12. 24.9.2012 Shri R.B.Goutam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned P.L.for the State/respondents no.1 to 4. Shri S.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants namely Satish Kumar Prajapati and Kamal Kumar Khiyani, on whose behalf I.A.No.8930/12, permitting them to intervene in the matter has been filed. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuing the appropriate writ directing the authorities of the respondents to comply and execute the order dated 7.5.2012 (Annexure-P-4) passed by the respondent no.2 against the petitioner in revenue case No.39/A68/2011-12 vide order dated 7.5.2012. Pursuant to that, to demolish the disputed remaining portion of the shop. Having heard the counsel, in the available circumstances this petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to the authorities of the respondents no.1 to 5 to take appropriate steps in the matter in accordance with the ...
K.K. Raikwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
K.K.Raikwar versus State & ORS.W.P.No.10679/2012 24/09/2012 Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned GA for the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3. Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Sr.Counsel with Shri T.K.Khadka, learned counsel for Respondent No.5. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for vacating stay filed by Respondent No.5 i.e.I.A.No.11436/2012. Petitioner is working as a Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat Bahoriband District-Katni and by the impugned order, he has been transferred in the same capacity to Janpad Panchayat, Damoh and in his place, Respondent No.5 Smt. Meena Kashyap is being posted. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that transfer has been ordered not on administrative consideration but due to the malafides of Respondent No.4 who in the capacity as President of Jila Panchayat, Katni had made complaint against the petitioner and as a consequence thereof, the impugned action is take...
Chhotu Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P .No.16035/2012 (Chhotu Sahu versus State of MP and otheRs.24.09.2012 Heard Shri Sandeep Koshta, 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 respondents/authorities specifically respondent No.4 on the complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondents No.5 and 6, Sarpanch and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat Jamlapani, Janpad Panchayat Pandurna District Chhindwara. It is submitted that inspite of the fact that the Commissioner, Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur has directed the Sub Divisional Officer, Pandurna, respondent No.3 to conduct an enquiry and submit report and the respondent No.3/ S.D.O.Pandurna in turn, has directed the respondent No.4 the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Pandurna to submit a pointwise information in respect of the complaint made by the petitioner, the respondent/authority has not done so, as a result of which the matter is pending....
Smt. Vinita Deshmukh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Vinita Deshmukh & ORS.versus State & ORS.W.P.No.16055/2012 24/09/2012 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable by the week commencing from 29th of October, 2012. In the meanwhile, implementation of the circular of the State Government dated 14.2.2012 Annexure-P2 shall be subject to final decision of this writ petition and the State Government to show as to why the students, who have passed qualifying examination in the private institute are being discriminated and what is the reason behind issuance of circular dated 14.2.2012 Annexure-P2. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »