Back
MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
Rakesh Kumar Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
ORDER
This order shall also govern final disposal of Writ Petition No.6349 of 2014.]
1. The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 4.3.2013 passed by the Under Secretary, GAD, Bhopal, Govt. of M.P. whereby he has been held entitled to claim Samman Nidhi under rule 3(1) of the Loknayak Jai Prakash Narayan (MISA/DIR Rajnaitik Ya Samajik Karno Se Niruddh Vyakti), Samman Nidhi Niyam, 2008, from the date of the order.
2. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the order dated 4.3.2013 passed by respondent No.2/Collector & District Magistrate, Guna whereby without calculating actual parole period of the petitioner, he has been found entitled only for honorarium amounting to Rs.10,000/- per month instead of Rs.15,000/- as per amended rule 3 of the rules of Loknayak Jai Prakash Narayan (supra) vide Gazette Notification dated 4.1.2012.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been held entitled to such honorarium with effect from the date of the order passed by the Collector in terms of the Gazette Notification dated 4.1.2012 amending the 2008 rules and substituti
Eligibility for benefits under the Rules is determined by a constituted committee, and a party must directly challenge such decisions to seek judicial review.
The rejection date of a claim is the effective date for benefits under the Samman Nidhi scheme, not subsequent orders.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proceedings issued by the High Court were for the purpose of regularization of the petitioner's service and fixation of pension, and not f....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Government Orders dated 1st January, 2010 and 23rd April, 2010 in regulating the engagement of Sampras....
It clearly reveals that it was not petitioner, who never came forward to render his duties against post to which he subsequently came to be promoted, rather he was prevented by department itself from....
The subsequent notification repealing the Niyam, 2008 was an attempt to nullify the earlier judgment and was not clarificatory. The State's decision-making process for repealing the Niyam, 2008 was f....
Employees are entitled to increments earned prior to retirement, even if the increment is due the day after retirement, as denying it is arbitrary.
The punishment takes effect from the date of serving the order to the employee, and the currency of punishment may vary based on the nature of the punishment imposed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
