Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing S.K. Verma vs M.P. High Court & Anr. on 9 May, 2000

T.P.S. Bhadoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 July, 2015

This Court in ILR (2011) MP 1720 ( K.S. Verma Vs. State of M.P. and others) opined that note sheet / complaint is taken into consideration by the Minister. It is held that this kind of complaint cannot be a foundation for transferring the employee from one place to another. Except a bald complaint lodged by the district head of a political party, no other material brought on record to justify that the petitioner derelicted in his duty. The Court imposed cost also. This case has similarity with the present matter. The record shows that the entire action of transfer is based on bald complaint of Ex- MLA / Respondent No.2.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Aslam Shaikh vs Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut ... on 13 March, 2020

In the said judgment, this Court has held that if there are allegations of misconduct against the petitioner then the competent authority is always at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceeding against such erring officers. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid judgments as well as discussion in this petition is allowed and the impugned transfer order dated 17.06.2019 and relieving order18.06.2019 are hereby set aside.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - V Kasrekar - Full Document

Prabhat Singh Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 October, 2021

I t is alleged that the petitioner is working as an office bearer of the recognized Union and is elected as Block President of M.P. Sachiv Sangathan; therefore, the petitioner is having an exemption from being transferred for a period of two extensions. It is submitted that the petitioner is an elected office bearer and not a nominated office bearer. The other ground, which has been taken for challenging the transfer order is that the petitioner has been transferred on a complaint of respondent no.6 alleging that the petitioner has not attended the meeting and has opposed the respondent no.6 during election and also demanded money from the villagers to do their work. The transfer of the petitioner is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of K.S. Verma, Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in (2011) I.L.R. (MP) 1720. It is argued that the petitioner is still working and has not been relieved. A detailed representation against the transfer order is being made to the respondents authorities, the same is pending consideration and has not been decided till date. It is submitted that the petitioner has preferred a writ petition being aggrieved by the transfer order dated 27.08.2021, registered as Writ Petition No.17442/2021, the same was disposed of vide order dated 13.09.2021 directing the authorities to consider and decide the pending representation within a period of 30 days. In pursuance to the same, Signature Not Verified SAN the authorities have considered and decided the representation of the Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 2021.10.29 11:26:24 IST 2 WP-21915-2021 petitioner vide order dated 30.09.2021 and the representation has been rejected. It is argued that the ground with respect to violation of Clause-33 of the transfer policy, which was specifically raised by the petitioner was not considered while deciding the representation. In such circumstances, the order dated 30.09.2021 is per se illegal. As the petitioner has not been relieved till date; therefore, direction to the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner be issued.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - V Mishra - Full Document

Harsha Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2022

Secondly, ratio of law laid down in the case of K.S. Verma (supra) is not applicable. It has come on record that on 15/06/2010 petitioner therein (K.S Verma) was transferred from Betul to Bhopal in administrative exigency and within 6 months of his stay at Bhopal he was again transferred from Bhopal to Tikamgarh in administrative exigency. There was an allegation of colourable exercise of power. There were allegations that his transfer was initiated and given effect at the behest of District Head of a particular political party. There were allegations that petitioner had taken action against the Sweat meat traders, and therefore he was made scape goat on the basis of complaint lodged by the District Head of a particular political party. In this backdrop Coordinate Bench of this Court had shown indulgence and observed that transfer being apparently infested with malice cannot be given the stamp of approval, thus quashed the transfer order.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V Agarwal - Full Document

Sanjai Agrawal Son Of Shri K.K. Agrawal vs State Of Uttar Pradesh Through ... on 3 April, 2006

5. On the other hand Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned Counsel for the respondent, has invited the attention of the Court to 2 decisions wherein the issue of the powers of an Administrative Judge and also of the High Court have been discussed keeping in view the provisions of Article 235 of the Constitution of India. The first decision is in the case of V.K. Verma and Ors. v. The High Court at Lucknow Bench through Registrar General and Ors. Writ Petition No. 1182 of 2004, decided on 28.1.2005. The said judgment is in respect of cancellation of a select list, the orders whereof were passed by the Hon'ble Administrative Judge, Pratapgrah, and it was categorically held that powers of the Administrative Judge as contained under Rule 4-B of Chapter III of the Allahabad High Court Rules were extensive enough in order to regulate the functioning of the Officers of the subordinate courts including the District Judge. The findings given are in detail as would be evident from the perusal of the said judgment.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A P Sahi - Full Document

Christ Jyoti Senior Secondary School vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 February, 2013

7: This particular aspect whether such function is required any collection of information or not, was interpreted by this Court in the case of S.K. Verma Vs. 5 State of M.P. and others [2008 (5) MPHT 438 (DB)]. The Division Bench has categorically held that the Commission is only advisory and has limited power to look into the welfare, but has no power to act as an adjudicatory body into individual complaints. For the purposes of appreciation, the findings of the Division Bench in paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 are relevant, which read thus :-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - K K Trivedi - Full Document

Ramnath Gupta vs M.P.Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran ... on 9 September, 2021

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment passed in the case of S.K. Verma vs. State of M.P. and others dated 11.10.2017, W.P. No.1632/2014, wherein the Court has granted 12% interest per annum for delayed payment of pension and gratuity, considering that the delay in making the payment of pension and gratuity was not attributable to the petitioner.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - N Dubey - Full Document

Jahar Singh Bundela vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 September, 2021

It is seen from the record that the interim relief was granted to the petitioner on 05.04.2021 and the same was continued on 21.06.2021 considering the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 592 and in the case of K.S.Verma Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in ILR (2011) MP 1720 and the interim relief was continued.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - V Mishra - Full Document
1   2 Next