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. Smt. Kumud Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
Smt. Kumud Dubey versus State & ORS.W.P.No.16039/2012 21/09/2012 Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the Respondents/State on advance notice. Petitioner are working in the College of Education I.A.S.E.(PSM).Jabalpur under the administrative control of Respondent No.4. Petitioners were initially appointed in their parent department in the year 1985, thereafter, deputed to work in the establishment of Respondent No.4. It is the case of petitioners that they have been working in the same institute for a long period of time since 1985 and they claim absorption of their service in institute in question i.e.the college of Education (IASE) PSM, Jabalpur in accordance to the M.P.School Education Teacher Education and Training Academic (Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 2011 and post sanctioned under the said rule. Inter-alia pointing out that statutory rights accrue to petitioners to seek absorption in view ...
Smt. Sunita Chourasiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
W.P.No.15409/2012 21.09.2012 Shri Narendra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents, on advance copy. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed under the Scheme commonly known as Operation Black Board. After the appointment, the services of the petitioner were terminated. This has led to various litigation and finally the impugned orders were set aside, persons like petitioner were reinstated. Likewise, the petitioner was also reinstated in service. This was done pursuance to a decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Arun Tiwari and others versus Zila Mansevi Shikshak Sangh and others [1998(2) SCC 332].The termination of the persons like petitioner was found illegal by the Apex Court. Now, the only grievance of the petitioner is that even though the petitioner is reinstated in service, yet the benefit of regular pay scale has not been granted and the period of absence has not been regular...
Surendra Giri Goswami Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
1 Writ Petition No.15342/2012 21.9.2012 Shri A.N. Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Government Advocate on advance notice for respondents/State on advance notice. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the controversy involved in this case is covered by the judgment of Apex Court in Asha Saxena Vs. State of M.P. & Others S.L.P. (Civil) No.18881/06 and this case may be decided in the light of aforesaid judgment.2. The Apex Court in Asha Saxena (Supra) considering the controversy involved in the case held thus :- The appellant herein was appointed as a Lecturer in the Government Girls' Higher Secondary School, Mama Ka Bazar, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, on 19.9.1981. Prior to entry into service, the appellant had in 1972 acquired B.Ed. Degree. According to the appellant, at the time of entry into service she was entitled to two advance increments in accordance with a Circular issued by the State Government on 21.9.1974, which reads as follows: "Pointwis...
Smt. Savita Gandharve Vs. Swati Mena
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
Conc. No.1540/2012 (Smt. Savita Gandharve versus Swati Meena) 21.09.2012 Heard Shri Paritosh Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the act of the respondent in finally deciding the appeal case No.20(A-89 A 15/11/12) filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.10.2011 passed by the competent authority under section 40 of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch and disqualifying her for a period of six years to contest the election. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had filed a petition which has been registered as W.P.No.4535/12 before this court against the interim order passed by the Collector, Mandla dated 05.03.2012 whereby the stay granted by the previous Collector in the pending appeal had been vacated by the authority without assigning any reason therein. This court has pas...
Suresh Kumar Agrawal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
M.C.C.No.1054/2012 21.09.2012 Shri U.S.Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Swapnil Gangully, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of typographical error the designation of the petitioner has been typed as Assistant Teacher instead of Upper Division Teacher. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent submits that once the writ petition is disposed of, the permission to correct the cause title cannot be granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 28.08.2012 in W.P.No.12944/2012 be recalled. In view of aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the order dated 28.08.2012 in W.P.No.12944/2012 is recalled. The writ petition is restored to file. Accordingly, M.C.C.is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (Alok Aradhe) Judge RC...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Gopal Krishna Shrivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
State & ORS.versus Gopal Krishna Shrivastava & ORS.MCC.No.975/2012 21/09/2012 Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners/State. Shri Akash Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents. W.P.No.12600/2005 was disposed of by this Court with certain directions on 9.11.2010. Records indicate that on two earlier occasions, time was extended by this Court. A contempt application is also filed and the same is pending. not the respondents again want extension of time, however, respondents have not brought on record any fact or documents to show as to what action was taken by them, after the orders were passed by this Court initially in the writ petition on 9.11.2010 and, thereafter, when extensions were granted on 6.2.2012 in MCC No.84/2012. In the absence of proper justification being available on record to show that the respondents are taking steps for complying with the directions issued by this Court, merely by asking, extension cannot be granted. Respondents to file th...
Smt. Sunita Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
Criminal Appeal No.775/2011 21.9.2012 Shri V.K.Pandey, counsel for the appellants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent. Heard on I.A.No.7787/2012, an application for suspension of conviction of appellant No.5. The appellant No.5 is convicted for the offence punishable under section 211 read with section 109 of IPC and sentenced for 2 yeaRs.rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-. Vide order dated 6.4.2011, execution of jail sentence was suspended for the appellant No.5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant No.5 is an elected Sarpanch, who is elected for a period of 5 years and the appeal may not be disposed off within that short period of time and therefore, if conviction is not suspended, the appellant No.5 cannot work as a Sarpanch. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed his reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Navjot Singh Sidhu versus State of Punjab. [(2007) Cri.L.J.1427].and the...
Bhagwan Deen Kori Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15434/20121. 09.2012 Shri Ravendra Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The claim made by the petitioner is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in the case of M.N.Vankhede and another versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & otheRs.W.P.No.18652/2003, as also by a decision rendered in the case of Sewakram Bhede & another versus State of M.P.and otheRs.W.P.No.5688/2005, decided on 30.07.2007. The order passed in the case of Sewakram Bhede & another (supra) was called in question before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.754/2012 by the State, respondents herein. The said writ appeal has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court modifying the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent that instead of granting the benefit of leave encashment for a period of 240 days, the said benefit would be available for a period of 120 days to the persons like the petitioner in the present case. It is seen that similar is the claim made by the pe...
Smt. Sadhana Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15445/20121. 09.2012 Shri Jitendra Arya, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State. 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 p...
Laxmi Bai Kachhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
Smt. Laxmi Bai Kachi versus State of MP Serial No.1 21.09.2012. Shri M.K.Mishra for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Challenging the order passed withdrawing the financial powers of respondent No.5, this writ petition has been filed. Records indicate that an appeal is pending before the Additional Commissioner respondent No.2. Keeping in view the aforesaid, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondent No.2 the competent authority, is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner in accordance to law, after hearing all concerned, within a period of one month. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »