Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (0.61 seconds)

Ajay Sharma vs The State Of Mp on 6 August, 2020

48. It was then contended that the rights of the employees thus appointed, under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, are THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 14528/2019 Ajay Sharma vs. State of MP violated. It is stated that the State has treated the employees unfairly by employing them on less than minimum wages and extracting work from them for a pretty long period in comparison with those directly recruited who are getting more wages or salaries for doing similar work. The employees before us were engaged on daily wages in the department concerned on a wage that was made known to them. There is no case that the wage agreed upon was not being paid. Those who are working on daily wages formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in employment, even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equal work. There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating unequals as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though they have never been selected in terms of the relevant recruitment rules. The arguments based on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are therefore overruled.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Ajay Kumar vs State Of Mp on 20 October, 2020

5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.40043/2020 Ajay Kumar vs. State of M.P. follow all the instructions which may be issued by the Central Govt./State Govt. or Local Administration for combating Covid19. If it is found that the applicant has violated any of the instructions (whether general or specific) issued by the Central Govt./State Govt. or Local Administration, then this order shall automatically lose its effect, and the Local Administration/Police Authorities shall immediately take him in custody and would send them to the same jail from where he was released. The applicant is further directed to supply a copy of this bail order to the police station having jurisdiction over his place of residence.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Akshay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 May, 2022

It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already not deposited, he shall be released on bail, on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) along with solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court firstly on 4.7.2022, and on 3 Cr.A.No.7849/2021 (Akshay Vs. State of M.P.) such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S K Singh - Full Document

M/S Sahib Infrastructure Private ... vs The Secretary To The Government Of ... on 14 December, 2017

In this view of the matter, it is submitted that the necessary corollary which can be drawn a hy from the judgment of Pragat Akshay (supra) is that the action ad which has been taken after the commencement of the M Amendmednt Act shall be hit by the provisions of the of Amendment Act. Reference is made to the judgment of rt Supreme Court 2017 SCC Online SC 692 (TRF Ltd. Vs. ou Energo Engineering Projects Ltd.). It is submitted that if C an ineligible Arbitrator nominated another Arbitrator, the h entire exercise will be bad in law because the basic authority ig who has decided to appoint the Arbitrator had no competence H to do the same.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Smt. Rachna Bai Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 July, 2025

S. Appellants Status of Status of Status of Status of Status of parties in No in W.A Parties in Parties in parties in R.P parties in SLP No.1416/2 M.P W.A. No.191/2024( SLP No.22314/2024(Lil 025 No.5156/2 No.1233/20 Rameshwari No.8428/2024 adhar vs. State of 019(Title 20(title vs. State of (Akshay vs. M.P)(dismissed on Annexure Annexure M.P)(Dismisse Shri Ram 18/06/2024)[Court 'A') 'B') d on Builders)[Co order dated 20/02/2024)(tit urt order 18/06/2024{Annex le Annexure dated ure 'F'}] 'C') 05/04/2024 (Annexure 'D')Court order dated 06/08/2024(A Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARGHESE MATHEW Signing time: 24-07-2025 15:23:46 6 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18675 nnexure E)]
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - V K Shukla - Full Document

Umesh vs M/S Shriram Builders A Partership Firm ... on 24 July, 2025

S. Appellants Status of Status of Status of Status of Status of parties in No in W.A Parties in Parties in parties in R.P parties in SLP No.1416/2 M.P W.A. No.191/2024( SLP No.22314/2024(Lil 025 No.5156/2 No.1233/20 Rameshwari No.8428/2024 adhar vs. State of 019(Title 20(title vs. State of (Akshay vs. M.P)(dismissed on Annexure Annexure M.P)(Dismisse Shri Ram 18/06/2024)[Court 'A') 'B') d on Builders)[Co order dated 20/02/2024)(tit urt order 18/06/2024{Annex le Annexure dated ure 'F'}] 'C') 05/04/2024 (Annexure 'D')Court order dated 06/08/2024(A Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARGHESE MATHEW Signing time: 24-07-2025 15:23:46 6 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18675 nnexure E)]
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - V K Shukla - Full Document

Ajay Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 January, 2020

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that according to the prosecution case when the Police was trying to stop the Tractor & Trolley which was loaded with illegally excavated sand, then the applicant along with other co-accused persons came there and not only forcibly took away Tractor& Trolley but also snatched the mobile of the complainant. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail from 19/07/2019 i.e. almost from 6 months and the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time. Although the applicant was arrested on 19/07/2019 whereas incident was taken place in the year 2017 but the applicant is ready and willing to abide by any stringent condition, which may be imposed by 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.53738/2019 Ajay Singh Vs. State of M.P. this Court and there is no possibility of his absconsion or tempering with the prosecution evidence.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next