Court : Madhya Pradesh
WRIT PETITION No.13909/20103. 09.2012 Shri Aniruddha Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Government Advocate, for the respondents-State. Heard on the question of admission. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the services rendered by him in the Local Body has not been considered for grant of pension treating it to be a qualifying service. It is stated by Mr. Aniruddha Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised has already been decided by this Court in W.P. No.4919/2003 (Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others) and other similar connected writ petitions decided on 27.11.2003 holding that the period spent in Janpad Sabha/Municipal Bodies has to be counted as pensionable service. It is conceded at bar that matter is similar as decided in W.P. No.4919/2003 (Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others) and other connected matters on 27.11.2003 by this Court. This Court has passed the following order : In these wri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
WRIT PETITION No.15795/20124. 09.2012 Shri Vikas Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State. Heard on the question of admission. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the services rendered by him in the Local Body has not been considered for grant of pension treating it to be a qualifying service. It is stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised has already been decided by this Court in W.P. No.4919/2003 (Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others) and other similar connected writ petitions decided on 27.11.2003 holding that the period spent in Janpad Sabha/Municipal Bodies has to be counted as pensionable service. It is conceded at bar that matter is similar as decided in W.P. No.4919/2003 (Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others) and other connected matters on 27.11.2003 by this Court. This Court has passed the following order : In these writ petitions, question involved is common. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
WRIT PETITION No.14654/20112. 09.2012 Shri Umesh Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Though the matter is listed for default, as has been pointed out by the office, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is a retired person and is claiming the parity with the decision already rendered in the similar circumstances by this Court, the default pointed out by the office is ignored. The petitioner who was employed in private school, which was taken over by the State Government, is claiming the benefit of grant of pension from the date, counting the period he has rendered service in the private school. This Court in various cases has considered these aspects and in W.P.No.10240/2008 (S) [Bhola Prasad Mishra versus State of Madhya Pradesh & others]., relying the decision given in the case of C.A.Bhakhare versus State of Madhya Pradesh & otheRs.1987 MPLJ 509 this Court has said that similar benefit would be applicable in the cases of persons like petitioner. Considered the su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 Writ Petition No.13713 of 2006 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava Writ Petition No.13713 of 2006 PETITIONER:1. Rajendra Prasad Parihar, aged 48 years, S/o Premdas Parihar, R/o Jasalpur Hoshangabad (M.P.) 2 Ajay Tiwari, aged 38 years, S/o K.P.Tiwari, R/o Kothi Bazar Hoshangabad (M.P.) 3. Alok Tiwari,aged 32 years S/o K.P.Tiwari, R/o Kothi Bazar Hoshangabad (M.P.) 4. Kirat Singh, aged 40 years S/o Babulal Mina, R/o Baharpur Babai, Hoshangabad (M.P.) 5. Mangilal Tomar S/o Badri Prasad Tomar, Aged 55 years, R/o Niaz Colony Harsi Hoshangabad (M.P.) 6. Nepal Rao Aged 48 years, S/o Shankar Rao, Ex- Serviceman Tawanagar, Itarsi District Hoshangabad (M.P.) 7. Mahesh Gulbake, Aged 30 years S/o Shri Ram Gulbake R/o Tawanagar Itarsi District Hoshangabad (M.P.) 8. Shri Prem Singh S/o Kalloo Singh, Aged 60 years,Retired from M.P.Police Itarsi, District Hoshangabad (M.P.) 9. Hari Narayan Sharma,Aged 38 years S/o Mithoolal Sharma,R/o Jummerati Di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
WRIT PETITION No.15854/20105. 10.2012 Shri Rakesh Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State. Heard on the question of admission. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the services rendered by him in the Local Body has not been considered for grant of pension treating it to be a qualifying service. It is stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised has already been decided by this Court in W.P. No.4919/2003 (Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others) and other similar connected writ petitions decided on 27.11.2003 holding that the period spent in Janpad Sabha/Municipal Bodies has to be counted as pensionable service. It is conceded at bar that matter is similar as decided in W.P. No.4919/2003 (Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others) and other connected matters on 27.11.2003 by this Court. This Court has passed the following order : In these writ petitions, question involved is common. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P.No.16503/2012 05.10.2012 Shri Naval Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State on advance notice. 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 in the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P. No.16509/2012 05.10.2012 Shri Anirudh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents- State. Heard on the question of admission. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the services rendered by them in the Local Body has not been considered for grant of pension treating it to be a qualifying service. It is stated by Mr. Aniruddha Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioners that the issue raised has already been decided by this Court in W.P. No.4919/2003 (Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others) and other similar connected writ petitions decided on 27.11.2003 holding that the period spent in Janpad Sabha/Municipal Bodies has to be counted as pensionable service. It is conceded at bar that matter is similar as decided in W.P. No.4919/2003 (Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others) and other connected matters on 27.11.2003 by this Court. This Court has passed the following order : In these writ petitions, questio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
WRIT PETITION No.17541/20131. 10.2012 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the services rendered by him in the Local Body has not been considered for grant of pension treating it to be a qualifying service. It is stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised has already been decided by this Court in W.P. No.4919/2003 (Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others) and other similar connected writ petitions decided on 27.11.2003 holding that the period spent in Janpad Sabha/Municipal Bodies has to be counted as pensionable service. It is conceded at bar that matter is similar as decided in W.P. No.4919/2003 (Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others) and other connected matters on 27.11.2003 by this Court. This Court has passed the following order : In these writ petitions, question ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
B.D. Rathi, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 by the appellant/accused Kapuri Bai against a Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 7th September, 1999 delivered by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in S.T.No.219/95. 2. By the aforesaid impugned judgment, co-accused Hotam Singh stands acquitted of the offence under Section 304-B or in alternative under Section 302 of I.P.C. So also present accused/appellant was also acquitted of the offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C., but was held guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment of life with a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of which she was directed to suffer additional imprisonment of one year. 3. As per prosecution case, the incident occurred on 28/3/94 when Sunita Bai (since deceased) was brought to the hospital for treatment in a burnt condition. A Dehati Nalish (Ex.P/14) was lodged by her on the same day...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2000MP40
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 15-6-1999 (Annexure P-6) and order dated 17-6-1999 (Annexure P-7) passed by the respondent No. 1 State of Madhya Pradesh.2. The petitioner was Mayor of the Municipal Corporation, Kathni. He was absent in all the five meetings of the Corporation held on 30-4-1998, 5-5-1998, 3-7-1998, 26-12-1998 and 30-3-1999. Section 17(2)(c) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) provides that if any Mayor absents himself during six consecutive months from the meetings of the Corporation except 'with the leave of the Corporation' he shall be disabled from continuing to be a Mayor and his office shall become vacant. Sub-section (3) of Section 17 further provides that in every case the authority competent to decide whether a vacancy has occurred shall be the Government. The proviso to this sub-section provides that no order under this sub-sect...
Tag this Judgment!