Madhya Pradesh High Court
K.P. Arbikar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 October, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.No. 19375/2021
(K.P. Arbikar Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Jabalpur, Dated : 27.10.2021
Shri S.K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Tapan Bathre, learned PL for respondent -State.
Shri V.S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.
The present petition has been filed against inaction on the part of
respondent no. 4 in not regularizing the services of the petitioner. It is
submitted that the Board of Directors of respondent no. 4 has passed a
resolution dated 2.5.2013 for regularizing the services of the irregular
employees. The respondent no. 3 has also recommended for regularization
of employees, vide memo dated 12.9.2013 but despite of the same, no
action has been taken by the respondents - authorities. A representation to
the aforesaid effect was also filed but the same is kept pending and not
decided. It is argued that similarly situated employees filed a writ petition
before this court which was registered as W.P.No.3280/2016, (Prakash
Verma Vs. State of M.P. and others), which was finally heard and decided
in an analogous hearing on 16.3.2021 and considering the fact that the
appointments of petitioners are not illegal, directions have been issued to
the authorities to consider the case for regularization and the court opined
as under :-
"15. Shri Agrawal appearing for the petitioner on the other hand
submits that the report of 2004 was considered by the Board of Directors
and thereafter recommendation has been made for considering the
petitioner to be regularized and, therefore, at this stage, the respondents
cannot reopen the issue and make the report of 2004 foundation for
rejecting the claim of the petitioner. He submits that on 20.05.2009
(Annexure-P/7) an order has been issued specifying as to which
categories of employees are disqualified to be considered for
regularization. He submits that the case of the W.P. No.3280/2016 &
connected petitions petitioner does not fall within those categories. The
petitioner further submits that since 19 years he has been performing
duties and on every occasion recommendation has been made for his
regularization and the Board of Directors has also approved and
recommended the name of the petitioner for regularization as the post on
which he has to be regularized is lying vacant. He submits that there were
other employees considered and regularized by the respondents'
organization, but repeatedly on a wrong premise, the claim of the
petitioner is being rejected by the authority.
16. Considering the submissions made by Shri Agrawal and perusal of
documents available on record, I am of the opinion that the respondents
are unnecessarily rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization
that too on a premise which is apparently not in consonance with the
available material. The petitioner neither appointed on contract basis nor
his appointment was considered to be illegal (Avaidh). On the contrary, it
is found that the appointment of the petitioner was irregular (Aniyamit)
and the petitioner can be regularized in view of the direction given by the
Supreme Court in case of Uma Devi (supra).
17. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the
petitioners are entitled to be regularized and accordingly,
recommendation has been made by the Board of Directors in their favour.
Therefore, these petitions are allowed directing the respondents to
regularize the services of the petitioners and pass W.P. No.3280/2016 &
connected petitions appropriate order thereof granting them benefit of
regular employee."
It is submitted that the aforesaid case is exactly identical to the case
of the present petitioner. Therefore, the petition be disposed of in the
similar fashion.
Per contra learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the
prayer and stated that it is to verify whether the appointment of the
petitioner is illegal or irregular because the petition has been disposed of in
the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Secretary State
of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and others (Appeal (Civil) 3595- 3612/1999),
wherein it was held that persons working as daily wagers continuously for
more than ten years, should be regularized. But, in the aforesaid judgment
of the Supreme Court the consideration for only irregular appointment was
made and it was specifically held that illegal appointment cannot be
regularized. In such circumstances, it is contended that the petitioner's
representation will be considered and decided by the authorities
expeditiously and if his case is found fit for regularization, the same will be
extended to him.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From perusal of the record, it is seen that the controversy involved in the
present has been put to rest in the case of Prakash Verma Vs. State of
M.P. and others, (supra) and as stated that the petitioner is identical
situated employee to the case of Prakash Verma Vs. State of M.P. and
others, (supra), therefore, this court deems it appropriate to dispose of the
writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to submit a detailed
representation alongwith all relevant documents to the respondent nos. 2
and 4 within a period of fifteen days from today and in case such a
representation is filed then the authorities are directed to dwell upon the
same and considering the judgment passed in the case of Prakash Verma
Vs. State of M.P. and others, (supra) pass a self contained speaking order
and communicate the outcome of the same to the petitioner. The aforesaid
exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order. The authorities are directed to decide
the representation also considering the fact that the petitioner is identically
situated to the case of Prakash Verma Vs. State of M.P. and others, (supra)
and the authorities will also be having right to verify the aspect whether the
appointment of the petitioner is illegal or irregular. If the petitioner is found
to be identically situated and his appointment is not found to be illegal then
the benefit as extended to the similarly situated employees be also
extended to the petitioner within the aforesaid period.
The petition stands disposed of.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
bks
BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
2021.10.28 12:21:01
+05'30'
