JABALPUR, India, March 11 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 9: Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after filing of the petition, the impugned tender notice has been cancelled. He accordingly seeks leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach afresh, if need so arises in future. In view of the above, petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication....
JABALPUR, India, March 11 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 9: Learned counsel for petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the petition reserving the right of the petitioner to approach afresh if the appeal is not decided within reasonable time. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication....
JABALPUR, India, March 11 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 9: Learned counsel for petitioners seeks leave to withdraw the petition, reserving the right of the petitioner to pursue other remedies. In view of the above, petition is dismissed as withdrawn. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved. Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication....
JABALPUR, India, March 11 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 9: Appellant, who appears in person, seeks leave to withdraw the appeal. Appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication....
JABALPUR, India, March 11 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 9: 1. Appellant impugns order dated 27.09.2025, whereby the petition filed by the appellant challenging the transfer order dated 30.06.2025 has been dismissed. By an order dated 30.06.2025 appellant was transferred from the office of MPPKVVCL Nadan Kendra Maihar, District Maihar to the office of Executive Engineer (Store), Satna. Petitioner challenged the transfer by way of a writ petition being W...
JABALPUR, India, March 11 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 9: 1. Appellant has assailed the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.17216/2025; whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the father of appellant expired on 03.12.2020 and the appellant applied for compassionate appointment, which was duly granted to the appellant vide order dated 02.11.2...
JABALPUR, India, March 11 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 9: 1. The instant intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.20383/2016, whereby the writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 was allowed with a direction to the appellant to extend the benefit of third ACP on completion of 30 years of service, from the date of initial appointment. 2. H...
JABALPUR, India, March 11 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 9: 1. The appellant impugns order dated 13.11.2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 2. The appellant is a guest faculty and has now been declared as "fallen out" on account of regular posting in respective government college. The factual position was that no guest faculty was permitted to be replaced by a guest faculty and was permitted to be replaced by a re...
RANCHI, India, March 10 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Feb. 9: 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition. 2. Prayer is allowed. 3. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication....
RANCHI, India, March 10 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Feb. 9: 1. Heard the parties. 2. The prayer of petitioners is to count their past services under the respondents. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were regularized only on 2023, however, they were working since November, 2008 but their past services have not been calculated for the purpose of considering their pensionary benefits. 4. The petitioners have worked for more than 14 year and ...