Gajendra Singh Choudhary vs State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5749 MP

                                      1



                HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

                   W.P.No.19507 of 2021
 (Gajendra Singh Choudhary Vs. The State of M.P. and others)


Jabalpur, Dated : 21.09.2021


      Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the

respondents Nos.1 to 3/State.

Shri V.S. Choudhary, learned counsel for 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

which 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 AM.

Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Date: 2021.09.22 18:06:39 +05'30'