Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.28 seconds)

Kesharsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 January, 2017

Respondents have filed their reply inter alia contending that the engagement of the petitioner is not in dispute but, because his services were not regularized, therefore, he is not entitled to get the pensionary benefits. It is said that the judgment of Hari Narayan Sharma (supra) is distinguishable from the facts of this case because the petitioner was not regularized in the employment. However, it is prayed that the petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Surendra Prasad Chauhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2017

Thereafter, vide order dated 22.08.2008 the State Government has transferred the said powers to the Joint Director, Public Instructions from the Collector. Thus at the relevant time the appointing authority of the petitioner was the Collector and, therefore, the Joint Director was not competent authority to terminate the services of the petitioner. He further submits that even if it is found that the appointing authority of the petitioner is Joint Director even then the order of termination has been passed by respondent No. 3 who was In-charge Joint Director, Public Instructions, Sagar and his substantive post was Principal Higher Secondary School. He, therefore, submits that as respondent No. 2 was not holding the post of Joint Director of Public Instructions substantively and, therefore, he is not competent to pass the order of termination and for the said purpose he relied on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shyam Narayan Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & others passed in Writ Appeal No. 1005/2011 and similar other writ petitions.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shyam Narayan Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2015

<font size="4"> <div style="width: 600px; background-color: white; height: 500px; margin: 0px auto; word-wrap: break-word;" id="ggg" onkeypress="return nb(event)" onmouseup="checkStat()" contenteditable="true"> <p style="font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; page-break-before: always" align="CENTER" lang="en-GB"> <font face="Bitstream Vera Serif, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"><u><b>Writ Petition No.15230/2014</b></u></font></font></p> <p style="font-style: normal; line-height: 100%" align="CENTER" lang="en-GB"> <font face="Bitstream Vera Serif, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"><u><b>(Shyam Narayan Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.)</b></u></font></font></p> <p style="line-height: 150%" align="JUSTIFY" lang="en-GB"><font face="Bitstream Vera Serif, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"><u><b>05.02.2015</b></u></font></font></p> <p style="line-height: 150%" align="JUSTIFY" lang="en-GB"><font face="Bitstream Vera Serif, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"> <font style="font-size: 12pt" size="3">Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted 4 weeks' time to file rejoinder. </font></font></font> </p> <p style="line-height: 150%" align="JUSTIFY" lang="en-GB"><br><br> </p> <p style="line-height: 100%" align="JUSTIFY" lang="en-GB"><font face="Bitstream Vera Serif, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"><b> (Ms.Vandana Kasrekar) Judge</b></font></font></p> <ol start="1000" type="I"><p style="font-style: normal; line-height: 150%" align="JUSTIFY" lang="en-GB"> <font face="Bitstream Vera Serif, serif"><font size="1"><u><b>RC</b></u></font></font></p></ol> <!--<object type="application/pdf" data="../../MPHCJB/2014/SA/125/SA_125_2014_Order_03-Jul-2014.pdf" id="ggg_object" style="display: none"></object>--> <object type="application/pdf" id="ggg_object" style="display: none"></object> <!--<iframe src="../../MPHCJB/SA_125_2014_Order_03-Jul-2014.pdf" id='ggg_object' width="800px" height="600px" >--> </div> </font>
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next