Madhya Pradesh Court January 2014 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.
Amar Singh Chandela Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
Amar Singh Chandela & ORS.versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.1413 / 2014 28.1.2014: Shri Naveen Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State. It is stated in the petition that in terms of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Janpad Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998, the petitioners would be entitled to grant of regular pay scale of the post of Shiksha Karmi. However, such a claim is not being considered, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. It is further stated that identical claim was made before the Indore Bench of this Court in W.P.No.602/2010 (S) by certain teachers of the similar category namely Mohanlal & others and the said writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 22.01.2010 directing consideration of the claim of the persons like petitioners and, therefore, similar treatment may be given to the petitioneRs.This Court in the case of Mohanlal...
Gaya Prasad Khirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
1 W.P.No.1353/2014 Gaya Prasad Khirwar versus State of M.P.& ORS.28.01.2014 Shri Alok Kumar Halwai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent\State. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's representation for reviving his order of promotion dated 19.11.2012 by which he has been promoted on the post of Senior Agricultural Development Officer. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of promotion was served upon the petitioner belatedly, therefore, he could not join the promoted post within a month in view of clause-5 of the order of promotion and in such circumstances he has requested the respondent authorities to revive the order of his promotion to enable him to join his promoted post but no decision thereon has been issued till date and, therefore, the respondent authorities be directed t...
Ram Mani Singh Marke Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given B ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
1 W.P.No.19670/2013 Ram Mani Singh Marke versus State of M.P.& ORS.28.01.2014 Shri Manish Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent\State, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 26.9.2013 by which the petitioner has been transferred as Panchayat Co.ordinator, Janpad Panchayat Majhauli, District Sidhi to Janpad Panchayat Sihawal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not a surplus employee as he has been working in Janpad Panchayat Majhauli since 1995 and is drawing salary from the regular establishment. It is submitted that several junior persons who have been appointed much later and are being paid salary from other establishments have not been transferred whereas the petitioner has been singled out for such treatment. It is stated that in such circumstances the impugned order be quashed. Having hea...
Sandeep Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Sh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
Sandeep versus State of M.P.& Anr.Writ Petition No.8679 / 2008 28.1.2014 Shri Anoop Sonkar, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, leanred Dy. Advocate General for respondent No.1. Shri P.C.Paliwal, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Challenging the order Annexure P-1 dated 7.8.1997 terminating the service of petitioner due to his absence from duty, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner was working in the Nagar Palika Parishad Chhidwara as a sweeper. He was arrested on 15.3.97 vide crime No.139/97 due to his involvement in criminal case for offence under Sections 376 and 511 of IPC. Records indicate that he was arrested on 15.3.97 and continued to remain in police custody for a period of more than 5 months. As he was not attending duty and continued to remain in police custody for 5 months, the municipal council took the impugned action. However, petitioner was released on bail some time in the end of August, 1997 and when he reported to join duties, because o...
Mahesh Prasad Sen Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
1 W.P.No.16152/2013 Mahesh Prasad Sen versus State of M.P.& ORS.28.01.2014 Smt. Sneh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sourabh Sunder learned counsel for respondent no.4. Shri S.K.Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent\State. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on I.A No.16296/2013 for vacating stay. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 that the award, after approval of the Collector, has already been passed and compensation in respect of the petitioner's land has been determined and in such circumstances in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, he has to seek a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the petition, for that purpose, is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner, per contra, submits that the objection of the petitioner, filed pursuance to the issuance of a notice under section 9 of the Act, was not considered and, therefore...
Pradeep Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon' ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
1 W.P.No.257/2014. 28/01/2014 Shri Praveen Chourasiya, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate for the respondents/State on advance notice. Heard on the question of admission. With the consent of parties, petition is finally heard and disposed of. ControveRs.involved in this petition is in a narrow compass. Petitioner is serving as PTI in District Education Office, District-Seoni and has completed more than 24 years of service. He asserts that he has completed 12 years of service and accordingly fiRs.kramonnati had been granted, however, on completion of 24 years of service he has not been extended second kramonnati though similarly situated persons have been accorded the benefit. There is no cavil of doubt that the controveRs.as regards second kramonnati upon 24 years of service is no more res-integra. In series of of judgments this Court has passed orders as regards entitlement of individuals who have been extended the second kramonnati. The petitioner has...
Sudhir Chandra Datt Vs. the Union of India and Ors Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
---1--- M.C.C. No.5/2004 28.1.2014 Shri Siddharth Datt, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for Respondent No.3. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned counsel for Respondents/State. Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for Respondent No.6. Learned counsel for the State has informed the Court that the Cabinet has taken decision on 6.1.2014 to transfer the identified land to Airport Authority of India. That process, however, may take some time, as more than one department of State Government is involved. Inasmuch as, the land to be transferred pertains to different departments such as Forest Department, Revenue Department, Urban Administrative Department and private individuals. As regards the land belonging to the private individuals the State Government is taking steps in accordance with law and would expedite the said process in due course. The land pertaining to the State Government's Department, other than Forest Department, would be transferred at the earliest an...
Mithilesh Kumar Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
1 W.P.No.1314/2014 W.P.No.1314/2014 28.01.2014 Shri Sanjay Soni, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State. Petitioners initially appointed as Shiksha Karmis under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Janpad Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998. Subsequently, being absorbed as Sahayak Adhyapaks in pursuance to the Madhya Pradesh Adhyapak Samvarg (Employment and Conditions of service) Rules 2008 and granted regular pay-scale with effect from 01.04.2007 seeks direction to the respondents to grant regular pay-scale from the date of their initial appointment as Shiksha Karmi. During the couRs.of submission, it is being stated by learned counsel for petitioners that similarly situated persons have approached this Court vide writ petition No.602/2010(s) : Mohanlal and ors.v.State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 22.01.2010 & writ petition No.4720/2013 : Jitendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh and thes...
Ganpati Bobade Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
1 W.P.No.1436/2014 W.P.No.1436/2014 28.01.2014 Shri S.U.Baig, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State. Petitioners initially appointed as Shiksha Karmis under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Janpad Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998. Subsequently, being absorbed as Adhyapaks in pursuance to the Madhya Pradesh Adhyapak Samvarg (Employment and Conditions of service) Rules 2008 and granted regular pay-scale with effect from 01.04.2007 seeks direction to the respondents to grant regular pay-scale from the date of their initial appointment as Shiksha Karmi. During the couRs.of submission, it is being stated by learned counsel for petitioners that similarly situated persons have approached this Court vide writ petition No.602/2010(s) : Mohanlal and ors.v.State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 22.01.2010 & writ petition No.4720/2013 : Jitendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh and these petitions...
Ram Khelawan Gupta Vs. Board of Revenue M.P. Gwalior Judgement Given B ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
1 W.P.No.17865/2013 W.P.No.17865/2013 28.01.2014 Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 4. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against order dated 15.04.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue in revision case No.48/Two-2013. At the outset, learned counsel for petitioner submits that a similar challenge in writ petition No.17867/2013 : Ram Khelawan Gupta versus Board of Revenue has been negatived vide order dated 18.10.2013 passed in the said writ petition; whereby, the order passed by the Board of Revenue has been up-held. In writ petition No.17867/2013 the Bench of this Court had declined to interfere with the order passed by the Board of Revenue in the following terms : "5. It is also apparent from the impugned order that while dismissing the impugned revision the merits of the factual matrix of the matter were also taken into consideration and thereafter it was held that t...