Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.56 seconds)
Prakash Kumar Landge vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 May, 2025 cites

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ram Prasad Judgement Given By: Hon'Ble ... on 13 September, 2013

It is his case that till the matter is subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and an interim relief of maintaining status quo is pending consideration, the Authorities cannot convene a DPC for promotion of the employees but the counsel appearing for the appellant could not dispute the fact that in the order passed by the Gwalior Bench of this Court on 09.03.2022 in Writ Petition No.14029 of 2020 (Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma and others Vs. State of M.P. and another) and Single Bench decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.13241 of 2017 in the case of Dhirendra Chaturvedi Vs. State of M.P. decided on 16.04.2019 the issue with regard to pendency of SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B.Rai (supra) has been considered, and considering the fact that certain modified orders have been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which are reflected from the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-05-2025 11:41:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25064 16 W.P. No.12480/2025 & connected petitions impugned order itself the present writ petition was disposed off holding that the decision will be applied mutatis mutandis to the case of the petitioner also. He could not dispute the fact that the aforesaid orders have not been put to challenge before any of the higher forums. He could not place on record any order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court modifying the earlier orders which were considered by this Court in Writ Petitions No.14029 of 2020 and 13241 of 2017.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 21 - B D Rathi - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Vinay Kumar Babele on 10 April, 2023

14. Again this Court in the case of R.P. Gupta and Others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vide order dated 17/09/2024 passed in W.P. No.26382/2024 has taken note of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1584/2022 as well as the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinay Kumar Babele (supra), and has ordered as under:-
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dhirendra Chaturvedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 June, 2023

It is his case that till the matter is subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and an interim relief of maintaining status quo is pending consideration, the Authorities cannot convene a DPC for promotion of the employees but the counsel appearing for the appellant could not dispute the fact that in the order passed by the Gwalior Bench of this Court on 09.03.2022 in Writ Petition No.14029 of 2020 (Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma and others Vs. State of M.P. and another) and Single Bench decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.13241 of 2017 in the case of Dhirendra Chaturvedi Vs. State of M.P. decided on 16.04.2019 the issue with regard to pendency of SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B.Rai (supra) has been considered, and considering the fact that certain modified orders have been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which are reflected from the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-05-2025 11:41:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25064 16 W.P. No.12480/2025 & connected petitions impugned order itself the present writ petition was disposed off holding that the decision will be applied mutatis mutandis to the case of the petitioner also. He could not dispute the fact that the aforesaid orders have not been put to challenge before any of the higher forums. He could not place on record any order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court modifying the earlier orders which were considered by this Court in Writ Petitions No.14029 of 2020 and 13241 of 2017.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 7 - M S Bhatti - Full Document

M.Nagaraj & Others vs Union Of India & Others on 19 October, 2006

The status quo order, therefore, can be considered to avoid such a situation and to revert the ineligible employee who have granted promotion by applying the provisions of the Promotion Rules, 2002, that is basically without following the direction of the Apex Court in case of M. Nagraj (supra) as the State Government has not assessed the quantifying data."
Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 793 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar Sharma And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 21 May, 2004

It is his case that till the matter is subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and an interim relief of maintaining status quo is pending consideration, the Authorities cannot convene a DPC for promotion of the employees but the counsel appearing for the appellant could not dispute the fact that in the order passed by the Gwalior Bench of this Court on 09.03.2022 in Writ Petition No.14029 of 2020 (Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma and others Vs. State of M.P. and another) and Single Bench decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.13241 of 2017 in the case of Dhirendra Chaturvedi Vs. State of M.P. decided on 16.04.2019 the issue with regard to pendency of SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B.Rai (supra) has been considered, and considering the fact that certain modified orders have been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which are reflected from the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-05-2025 11:41:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25064 16 W.P. No.12480/2025 & connected petitions impugned order itself the present writ petition was disposed off holding that the decision will be applied mutatis mutandis to the case of the petitioner also. He could not dispute the fact that the aforesaid orders have not been put to challenge before any of the higher forums. He could not place on record any order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court modifying the earlier orders which were considered by this Court in Writ Petitions No.14029 of 2020 and 13241 of 2017.
Allahabad High Court Cites 91 - Cited by 401 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

Kushal Singh vs Revenue Department on 4 October, 2017

The petitioner has placed reliance upon an order passed in W.P. No.45/2017 (Kushal Singh Vs. Revenue Department) decided vide order dated 04.10.2017, in which, the High Court after taking note of the order of status quo passed by the Supreme Court in SLP No.13954/2016 in case of State of M.P. and others Vs. R.B. Rai, has observed that the said order would not come in the way in a case where issue of reservation is not involved. Here in this case also no issue regarding reservation is involved because the petitioner being a candidate of General Category is claiming promotion. Not only this, but in an advice taken from the Government of India as to whether promotion can be made to the officers of the Government as there is an order of status quo in a pending SLP before the Supreme Court. The clarification was made vide Office Memorandum dated 15th June, 2018 by the Government of India, in which, the State Government was also advised to take necessary action in accordance with the advice given in the said memorandum wherein the Government of India has clarified that there is no bar to issue the order of promotion of the officers asking promotion from unreserved category. It is clarified in the memorandum that at the most the order of promotion may contain a condition that, the same would be subjected to the final decision of the pending SLP before the Supreme Court.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Mukesh Kumar Sharma And Others vs State Of U.P.And Another on 7 August, 2023

In that, there is an order passed by this Court in the case of Dhirendra Chaturvedi v. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.13241/2017) on 16.04.2019, which was later-on followed by the coordinate bench in W.P.No.16777/2020 (Dr. Mukesh Sharma & Others v. The State of M.P. & Another) vide order dated 29.06.2022 and those orders were also affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next