Filter by Date
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Surya Prakash Vs. Smt. Rachna

MCRC, 16718 of 2015, Judgment Date: Oct 10, 2017

Law Laid Down -  If there is any instance of domestic violence, for which an affirmative or prohibitory order is passed under Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the provisions of Section 31 of the Act can be invoked. Non-payment of maintenance allowance is also a breach of 'protection order' or 'interim protection order'. The order passed in Sunil @ Sonu vs. Sarita Chawla (Smt.), reported in 2009 (5) MPHT 319 is in accordance with Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

Lakshminarayan vs. Smt. Sudamabai & Ors.

Criminal Revision, 443 of 2017, Judgment Date: Sep 07, 2017

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

DEVILAL S/O BHAGIRATH Vs. M. P. STATE

FA, 768 of 2000, Judgment Date: Jun 29, 2017

Full Judgment

Tags Interest Pay
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

Jaikumar Meena vs. Smt. Radha Meena & Anr.

Criminal Revision, 465 of 2017, Judgment Date: May 16, 2017

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

Ramvaran Sharma Vs. Smt. Ramsnehi Sharma

Criminal Revision, 108 of 2017, Judgment Date: May 11, 2017

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

Gaurav Lohiya Vs. Smt. Nidhi Lohiya and Another

Criminal Revision, 807 of 2015, Judgment Date: May 02, 2017

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Kishan Pilley and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others

WRIT PETITION, 7058 of 2016, Judgment Date: Apr 28, 2017

Full Judgment

Tags Pay
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

Smt. Kamlesh Vs. Santoshi

MCRC, 5451 of 2014, Judgment Date: Apr 17, 2017

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

Mangaliya & Anr. Vs State of M.P.

Criminal Appeal, 203 of 2006, Judgment Date: Mar 09, 2017

Full Judgment

Tags Pay
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS Vs. JAGJIT SINGH AND ORS

Appeal (Civil), 213 of 2013, Judgment Date: Oct 26, 2016

Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether the concerned employees (before this Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as were Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

SHOBHA RAM RATURI Vs. HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.& ORS

Appeal (Civil), 11325 of 2011, Judgment Date: Dec 09, 2015

Having given our thoughtful consideration to the controversy, we are satisfied, that after the impugned order of retirement dated 31.12.2002 was set aside, the appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits. The fault lies with the respondents in not having utilised the services of the appellant for the period from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005. Had the appellant been allowed to continue in service, Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

B. RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 13407 of 2015, Judgment Date: Nov 17, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Appeal (Civil), 6393 of 2012, Judgment Date: Oct 06, 2015

When the order of suspension is revoked and the suspended employee is asked to join the duty, he is required to do so. How the period of suspension is to be treated is another aspect. At the most, such an employee would be entitled to full salary during the suspension period if no order is passed as to how the suspension period would be governed. That would not Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

THE CHAIRMAN,GWALIOR DEVT.AUTH.& ANR. Vs. SANDEEP TIWARI & ANR.

Appeal (Civil), 6553 of 2015, Judgment Date: Aug 24, 2015

Full Judgment

Tags Pay
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

STATE OF MP. & ORS. Vs. MALA BANERJEE

Appeal (Civil), 2944 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 17, 2015

3 Very briefly stated, the dispute pertains to the eligibility of the Respondents, all of whom are Lecturers/Teachers in the employment of the Education and Tribal Welfare Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, for increased pay scales. The Respondents claim the benefits of the Kramonnati Scheme with effect from 19.4.1999, whereas the Appellants assert that they are willing to grant the benefit of the Kramonnati Scheme Full Judgment