Madhya Pradesh Court September 2013 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.
Rajendra Prasad Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
Writ Petition No.16409/2013 (S) 27/09/2013 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the respondents. It appears that the petitioners are claiming the similar benefits as were extended by the Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior in W.A.No.225/2007 (Devi Charan Jha and another versus The State of M.P.and otheRs.decided on 17.12.2008. It is contended that appeal against the said decision was preferred before the Apex Court, but the SLP was dismissed. The Division Bench of this Court has decided the appeal in the following manner :- 1. Appellants are free to accept the Voluntary Retirement Scheme under the VRS Scheme of 2005. 2. If any government department or its instrumentality is willing to take the appellants or any employee of the corporation on deputation, the corporation will issue no objection certificate in their favour as have been done in the case of other employees. 3. So far as the question of absorption in the...
Smt. Haseena Begum Vs. Manoj Jhalani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
CONC No.1372/2012 Smt. Haseena Begum vs. Manoj Jhalani & ANo.1 27.09.2013 Shri Neeraj Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Munish Saini learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.597/2011 dated 20.8.2013 and modified by order dated 4.9.2013 has passed the following directions:- (a) The appellants are allowed to make payment of arrears which have fallen due to the respondent as per order dated 30.1.2013 passed by the State Government by which it was ordered by the School Education Department that all the respondents be paid arrears from 1.4.2000 to 9.12.2010 as per 5th Pay Commission but to the extent of 50% and the aforesaid payment shall be subject to the decision in the pending SLP and present writ appeal. (b) The instalments fallen due in 2012-13, i.e., two instalments, shall be paid by the appellants to all the teachers who have not been paid the arrears in compliance of the order ...
Rakesh Kumar Sethi Vs. Shri Manoj Jhalani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
CONC No.427/2012 Rakesh Kumar Sethi vs. Manoj Jhalani & ANo.1 27.09.2013 Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rakesh Shukla Saini learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.597/2011 dated 20.8.2013 and modified by order dated 4.9.2013 has passed the following directions:- (a) The appellants are allowed to make payment of arrears which have fallen due to the respondent as per order dated 30.1.2013 passed by the State Government by which it was ordered by the School Education Department that all the respondents be paid arrears from 1.4.2000 to 9.12.2010 as per 5th Pay Commission but to the extent of 50% and the aforesaid payment shall be subject to the decision in the pending SLP and present writ appeal. (b) The instalments fallen due in 2012-13, i.e., two instalments, shall be paid by the appellants to all the teachers who have not been paid the arrears in compliance of t...
B.S. Patel Vs. Shri Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
CONC No.2021/2013 B. S. Patel vs. Shri Sanjay Singh & ANo.1 27.09.2013 Shri Devesh Bhojne, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.597/2011 dated 20.8.2013 and modified by order dated 4.9.2013 has passed the following directions:- (a) The appellants are allowed to make payment of arrears which have fallen due to the respondent as per order dated 30.1.2013 passed by the State Government by which it was ordered by the School Education Department that all the respondents be paid arrears from 1.4.2000 to 9.12.2010 as per 5th Pay Commission but to the extent of 50% and the aforesaid payment shall be subject to the decision in the pending SLP and present writ appeal. (b) The instalments fallen due in 2012-13, i.e., two instalments, shall be paid by the appellants to all the teachers who have not been paid the arrears in compliance of the order dated ...
Ramswaroop Vs. Deendayal Nayak
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
Writ Petition No.16505/2013 27.09.2013 Ku. Sarita Kanojiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ashok Chourasiya, learned Govt. Adv for respondent no.7. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner /plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 2.9.2013 (Ann. P-1).passed by the IIIrd Civil Judge, Class-II, Bijawar, District Chhatarpur in C.O.S.No.13-A/12, whereby his applications filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint and application filed under Order 7, Rule 14 (2) (3) of the CPC for taking the annexed documents have been dismissed at the stage of final arguments of the impugned suit. Petitioner's counsel after taking me through the averments of the papers placed on record alongwith the impugned order argued that by way of proposed amendment, plaintiff wants to insert the date of birth of the plaintiff to assess the age of the plaintiff and in the available circumstances such prop...
Smt. Anusuiya Meshram Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
WRIT PETITION No.16317/2013 1 27.09.2013 Shri Kabir Giri, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioner is also similarly placed person that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioner is also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioner has prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 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 ...
Jai Prakash Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
Writ Petition No.16525/2013 (S) 27/09/2013 Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents. The only contention raised in the petition is that when the DPC was convened on 12.1.2012 pursuance to some directions issued by the Director of the Department on 4.1.2012, the ACR folders of the petitioner for the relevant years were not available and therefore the case of the petitioner was not considered for grant of higher pay scale and promotion. It is contended that since the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2013, even when the persons like petitioner, who were already considered and were found fit have been granted the benefit of higher pay scale vide order dated 23.1.2012 and promotion, but such a benefit was not made available to the petitioner while he was in service because of inaction on the part of the respondents in not convening a review DPC to consider the case of the...
Devesh Agrawal Vs. Shri Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
CONC No.2020/2013 Devesh Agrawal vs. Shri Sanjay Singh & ANo.1 27.09.2013 Shri Vinod Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.597/2011 dated 20.8.2013 and modified by order dated 4.9.2013 has passed the following directions:- (a) The appellants are allowed to make payment of arrears which have fallen due to the respondent as per order dated 30.1.2013 passed by the State Government by which it was ordered by the School Education Department that all the respondents be paid arrears from 1.4.2000 to 9.12.2010 as per 5th Pay Commission but to the extent of 50% and the aforesaid payment shall be subject to the decision in the pending SLP and present writ appeal. (b) The instalments fallen due in 2012-13, i.e., two instalments, shall be paid by the appellants to all the teachers who have not been paid the arrears in compliance of the order date...
Mohd. Ajhar Khan Vs. Smt. Meera Bai (Since Dead)th:lrs. Gopal Sirsam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
Writ Petition No.14482/2013 27.09.2013 Shri Aditya Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1-A and 1-B. Shri Akhilesh Jain, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Although this matter is listed for admission and consideration of stay application. But in the available circumstances, with the consent of the parties, the same is heard for final disposal. The petitioneRs.defendant Nos.4 and 5 have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2012, (Ann. P-4) and order dated 18.7.2013, (Ann. P-5) passed by the Ist Civil Judge, Class-I, Seoni, in Co.No.42-A of 2007, whereby by the earlier order their right to file WS in the matter has been closed and by subsequent order, the application filed on their behalf alongwith the WS under Section 151 of CPC to review/modify the order for taking their WS on record has been dismissed. PetitioneRs.counsel after taking me through ...
M/S Kanchan Traders Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
1 W.P.No.16063/2013 27.09.2013 Shri K.K.Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has claimed the following reliefs :- 7.1 To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to 4 to take coercive action against the respondent No.5, pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner by conducting an enquiry/investigation from the appropriate Authority/Agency. 7.2 To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to 4 to take strict/quick action on the complaint made by the petitioner against the respondent No.5, in relation to deny/refuse of Food, keeping by the petitioner vide Annexure P-2. 7.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other Writ, directions, order which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case to the petitioner. 7.4 This Hon'ble Court may kind...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »