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.
Ramkant Chaturvedi Vs. Principal Secretary School Education Department ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
....1 W.P.No.1232 of 2014 30.01.2014 Shri R.P.Dubey, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, G.A.for the respondents. Petitioner has sought following reliefs :- 1. To issue a direction to the respondents to consider the representation for payment of salary for the period of September and October,2012 Annexure P-4. 2. Any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of this case, along with the cost of this writ petition be also awarded. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been paid his salary for the month of September, October,2012 and in this regard representation Annexure P-4 is pending before the respondent No.5 who may be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner expeditious. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner has not filed any representation to respondent No.5 but representation Annexure P-4 was filed to B.R.C and not to D.R.C.In view of the aforesaid, this petition, at this stage is finally disp...
Dr. Devendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
W.P.No.1548/2014 30.1.2014 Shri Rahul Diwakar, counsel for petitioner. Shri Vivek Agarwal, G.A., for respondents. This petition is directed against an order Annexure P-11 dated 17.1.2014, by which the petitioner after revocation of his suspension order has been posted at District Hospital, Singrauli, (Baidhan).District Singrauli. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was suspended from Sidhi, so after his revocation is entitled to be reinstated at Sidhi. He has also submitted that his wife is posted at Sidhi. Apart from this, his mother is old and infirm, who requires care at Sidhi, so he may be permitted to continue at Sidhi. It is also submitted that till date petitioner is continuing at Sidhi, so order Annexure P-11 may be quashed. In the alternative, it is submitted that his representation Annexure P-12 is pending for consideration before respondent no.2, who may be directed to decide the same expeditiously and till then petitioner may be permitted to continue at ...
Shakti Prasad Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given B ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
- 1 -1 W.P.No.21558/2012 30/1/2014 : Shri R.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Jogelekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent- State. Shri Aditya Khandekar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Seeking grant of 20 additional marks for having obtained a B.Ed Degree and contending that the additional 20 marks as contemplated under para 1 of the Circular Annexure P/3 dated 8.5.2012 has not been granted to the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. Shri Khandekar, Learned counsel for the respondents points out that in the mark sheet issued to the petitioner Annexure P/2 which is the result of the test in question, petitioner has failed in the second paper i.e.Section B having obtained only 28 marks out of 100 whereas the minimum pass marks is 30. It is pointed out that petitioner having not qualified in the test concerned, the question of granting 20 additional marks for having additional qualification does not arise. Even though learned counsel for the pe...
Smt. Anusaiya Dhote Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
1 W.P.No.1358/2014 Smt.Anusaiya Dhote & others State of M.P.& others 30.1.2014 Shri Amit Chaturvedi, Counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Dy.A.G.for respondents. Petitioners have sought for following reliefs:- (i) To call for the entire records pertaining to the petitioners for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. (ii) To direct the respondents to extend the benefit of Second Kramonnati to the petitioners as per the circular. (iii) To direct the respondents to pay to the petitioners arrears of salary after fixation in the proper pay scale with the rate of interest at 12% p.a.till the realization of payment and further be pleased to give the benefit of revised pay scale to the petitioneRs.(iv) Any other suitable relief deems fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted together with the cost of the present case. Case of the petitioners is that their respective husbands who were in service were entitled for time bound promotion for the period during w...
Smt. Sheele Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
W.P.No.22195/2013 30.01.2014 Shri Ravendra Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents. Petitioner has sought following reliefs:- "7.1 By the issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus the respondents may be directed to grant the benefit of regular pay scale from initial date of appointment and consequential benefit to the petitioners and also arrears of the pay scale. 7.2 Any other appropriate writ or direction which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper may also be issued in favour of petitioner. 7.3 Costs may also be awarded." Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controveRs.involved in this case is squarely covered by an order of this Court in W.P.No.826/2013 (D.P.Kushwaha and others versus The State of M.P.and otheRs.Annexure P-3 and this petition may also be disposed of with similar directions. The prayer made in the petition is not opposed by Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. In v...
Sabiha Hasmi Vs. Principal Secretary Dept. of School Education the Sta ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
W.P.No.641/2014 30.1.2014 Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, G.A., for respondents. The petitioners have sought following reliefs :- (1) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant benefits of regular pay scale to the petitioners after completion of 3 years of probationary period in view of the circular dated 21-06-2001 as also Rule-7 of the M.P.Janpad Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment & Condition of Service) Rules, 1998, in the interest of justice. (2) It is, therefore, prayed that direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioneRs.in the interest of justice. (3) Any other writ or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner. In this petition petitioners have prayed that this case is squarely covered by an order of th...
Neetu Patel Vs. Dr. Ranjit Singh Patel Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
M.Cr.C.No.5993 of 2012 30.01.2014 Shri Jitendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.L.Ariha, learned counsel for respondent no.1. Shri Umesh Pandey, learned Govt. Adv.for respondent no.2. Heard on the question of admission. On behalf of the applicant, the principle complainant, who lodged the impugned FIR has filed this petition under Section 407 of Cr.P.C.to transfer the Criminal Case No.1946/11 instituted in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rewa after holding investigation by the Police against the respondent no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 406/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act from such Court to some competent court having the jurisdiction to hold the trial at Bhopal. In the couRs.of arguments, on asking the applicant's counsel that the impugned case being cognizable was investigated by the Police and charge sheet was also filed against the respondent No.1 by such authority under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.and in such pre...
D.R. Sanodia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'b ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
Writ Petition No.1621/2014. 30.1.2014. Shri A.K.Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Rawat, Panel Lawyer for the respondent no.1- State of M.P.on advance notice. Petitioner, a retired Secretary in Krishi Upaj Mandi, Seoni, has filed this petition, seeking direction to the respondents to forthwith release the amount of arrears as also revised pension as per recommendation of 6th pay commission for the period from 1.1.2006 till 31.8.2008. Instead of establishing that the recommendations of 6th pay commission are being accepted by the M.P.State Krishi Vipdan Board in respect of its employees, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has preferred a representation in respect of claim for grant of benefit of the 6th pay commission and therefore, respondents may be directed to decide thereon within a specific time frame. Petitioner, during the couRs.of submission, also relied upon the decision rendered in W.P.No.18770/2013 (Komal Chand Jain and others versus State...
Milan Banafar Vs. Smt. Reeta Banafar Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
M.Cr.C.No.8127/2011 30/01/2014 Shri U.K.Tripathi, Advocate for the applicant. Heard on admission. The applicant has preferred the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.against the order dated 15.9.2010 passed by the FiRs.Additional Judge to the Court of Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Criminal Revision No.111/2010 whereby the maintenance amount granted to the respondent is enhanced from a sum of Rs.1500/- to a sum of Rs.2500/- per month. After considering the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, it appears that initially vide order dated 19.4.2010 the learned JMFC Chhindwara in MJ.No.171/2007 granted a maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month to the respondent and the applicant did not prefer any revision against that order. Under such circumstances, at present he has a grievance about the quantum of maintenance. It is established that the applicant is earning a sum of Rs.24,000/- per month by way of salary. The learned counsel for the applicant has sub...
Parikshit Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Ho ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
- 1 -1 W.P.No.22046/2012 30/1/2014 : Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Jogelekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent- State. Shri Aditya Khandekar, learned counsel for respondent No.8. Challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Rewa vide Annexure P/5 on 7.11.2012 in the matter of appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Even though various grounds are raised in this writ petition, a legal question raised is against the order passed in appeal by the Collector or Additional Collector, no further revision is maintainable and therefore, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner is unsustainable. Learned counsel brings to the notice of this Court an order passed in W.P.No.8499/2011 on 7.3.2013 and points out that in the aforesaid case it has been held by the learned Bench that in accordance to the scheme formulated by the State Government for appointment on the post of Village Employment Assi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »