Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya vs Pramod Kumar Verma on 22 September, 2021
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
(Division Bench)
W.A. No.117/2017
Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya Jabalpur & anr.
-Versus-
Pramod Kumar Verma and another
Shri Prashant Singh, Senior Advocate with Shri Kamalnath Nayak,
Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :
Hon'ble Shri Justice Mohammad Rafiq, Chief Justice.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved for judgment on : 16-9-2020
Judgement pronounced on : 22-9-2021
[Hearing convened through virtual/physical mode]
JUDGMENT
(Jabalpur, dtd.22.9.2021)
Per : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.-
The present intra-court appeal has been filed under
Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand
Nyaypeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by the
order dated 9-12-2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP-
14838-2006 [Pramod Kumar Verma vs. Rani Durgawati Vishwa
Vidyalaya & others], whereby the writ petition filed by the writ-
petitioner/respondent No.1 [hereinafter referred to as "the
petitioner"] has been allowed. The petitioner challenged the order
of termination from service dated 19-6-2001 and rejection of his
representation dated 20-11-2004 before the learned Single Judge.
2. The facts of the case succinctly stated, are that the
petitioner was initially appointed on 23-3-1999 in the Office of the
respondent No.1 against the vacant post of Clerk on daily-wages. He
further claimed that he continuously worked upto 19-6-2001 on the
said post from which his services were terminated. The name of the
petitioner finds place at Sr.No.1 in the impugned order of termination
dated 19-6-2001, whereas the name of other incumbents, namely,
Satya Narayan Upadhyay and Deepak Pandey, respondents No.3 and
4 in the writ petition, find place at Sr. Nos.4 and 9 respectively.
Against the order of termination dated 19-6-2001 Satya Narayan
Upadhyay and Deepak Pandey had approached this Court by filing
the writ petition (WP-6495-2002) which was allowed by this Court
vide order dated 6-8-2003 quashing the impugned order dated 19-6-
2001 with a direction to the respondents/appellant to reinstate the
said petitioners on the post which they held at the time of their
termination. The aforesaid order passed by the Writ Court was
assailed by the appellants by filing an LPA No.559/2003, which was
also dismissed on 26-9-2003.
3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that in the year 2001 also the appellant No.1 terminated 47
daily wages employees vide order dated 14-8-2001, but subsequently
the appellant No.1 recalled the said order, vide order dated 28-8-
2001. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted various representations
before the appellants and since the same were not decided, he
preferred WP-9007-2004 before this Court, which was disposed of
by order dated 29-9-2004, with a direction to the Registrar of the
University to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of the
principles laid down in the case of Satya Narayan Upadhyay,
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified
copy of the order, and in pursuance of the same the appellants again
disallowed the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 20-11-2004.
4. In reply, the appellants contended that the name of the
petitioner finds place at Sr. No.1 of the impugned order, but still it
cannot be said that the aforesaid listing is on the basis of seniority
and as such the petitioner is not senior as he claims. It is further
contended that the petitioner has not submitted any appointment
letter and the documents which are appended as Annexure-P/3 to the
writ petition filed by the petitioner, which is a list of the employees
working with the University and the same is fabricated. It is further
contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the
impugned order of termination has been challenged after about 3
years and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches. It is strenuously urged by the learned
counsel for the appellants that other employees in whose favour this
Court has granted relief, are of different categories of employees
holding different posts and hence, the petitioner cannot claim parity
with those employees. The appellants also filed copies of the orders
passed by this Court, by which the writ petitions filed by other
employees have been dismissed. On the basis of the aforesaid
submissions, the appellants prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. In the rejoinder, the petitioner submitted that the
contention of the appellants cannot be accepted, because in similar
circumstances, this Court vide order dated 6-8-2003 allowed the WP-
6495-2002 filed by similarly situated person, namely, Satya Narayan
Upadhyay directing reinstatement of the said petitioner, and the facts
of the present case are identical to the facts of the writ petition filed
by the Satya Narayan Upadhyay. The petitioner also referred to the
order dated 30-01-2002 passed in WP-3494-2001 in favour of Alok
Kumar Pathak, whose name is at Sr. No.18 of the impugned order
and in that case also this Court allowed the writ petition and directed
reinstatement of Alok Kumar Pathak along with back-wages.
Reliance is also placed on the order passed by this Court in WP-
3439-2001 in the case of Jamuna Prasad Mishra, whose name finds
place at Sr. No.14 of the impugned order directing his reinstatement.
The petitioner also cited the order passed in WP-2805-2002, dated
26-4-2003 in the case of Zamil Ahmed Ansari, whose name also
finds place at Sr. No.12 of the impugned order.
6. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned
counsel for the parties and perusing the record, held that the case of
the present petitioner is similar to the cases of Satya Narayan
Upadhyaya, Alok Kumar Pathak and Deepak Pandey and directed the
appellants to reinstate them on the posts which they held at the time
of their termination. The learned Single Judge further observed that
the petitioner was also holding the post of Clerk like Satya Narayan
Upadhyay. He distinguished the case of Narendra Kumar on the
ground that the said petition was dismissed on the ground of
alternative remedy and it appears that this Court was not informed of
the other orders passed by this Court of similarly situated employees.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the learned Single Judge has
allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to reinstate the
petitioner at par with Satya Narayan Upadhyay, in terms of the order
dated 6-8-2003 passed in WP-6495-2002 and directed to extend the
benefit to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
8. While assailing the order passed by the learned Single
Judge the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that
there is nothing on record to support the claim of the respondents of
their appointment. Further, there is huge delay of three years in
preferring the representation by the respondents against the order
dated 19-6-2001. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge
did not consider the contention of the appellants that the list which
the respondents are claiming to be the seniority list is actually a
fabricated document. The learned counsel for the appellants
endeavoured hard to distinguish the case of the respondents with the
case of Satya Narayan Upadhyay in WP-6495-2002. It is
strenuously urged that the petitioner in the said case was reinstated
only because his juniors were allowed to continue on the principle of
"first come last go", whereas in the instant case the respondents have
failed to even prove that they were appointed. It is further
contended that the learned Single Judge did not consider the law laid
down in the case of Shiv Dass vs. Union of India, (2007) 9 SCC
274, where practice of filing a writ petition at a belated stage was
strictly deprecated. It is further argued that the writ petition was not
maintainable, because appropriate remedy for the respondents to lay
their claim was under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is urged
with vehemence that retrenchment compensation was accepted by the
respondents according to the provisions of Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 without any protest and, therefore, the
case of the respondents is not similar to the case of Satya Narayan
Upadhyay.
9. The respondents supported the order passed by the
learned Single Judge and submitted that the case of the respondents
is similar to that of Satya Narayan Upadhyay and other incumbents,
in whose favour this Court has passed the order of reinstatement. In
regard to submission of the list - Annexure-P/3 appended to the writ
petition being a fabricated document and the petition itself was
suffering from delay and laches, it is submitted that these issues have
been taken by the Writ Court in para 5 of the order.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
bestowed our anxious consideration on their respective arguments
advanced.
11. Regarding delay and laches of three years in challenging
the impugned order, it is to be noted that the writ
petitioner/respondent No.1 filed the first round of litigation in WP-
9007-2004, wherein on 29-9-2004 the Writ Court was pleased to
direct the appellants to consider the case of the writ
petitioner/respondent No.1 on the bedrock of the principle laid down
in the case of Satya Narayan Upadhyay (supra) within a period of
two months. The appellants have passed the rejection order on 20-
11-2004 and both orders of termination and rejection were
challenged in the writ petition in question by the petitioner. There is
no delay and laches warranting dismissal of the writ petition.
12. The petitioner earlier filed a writ petition which was
disposed of with a direction to the appellants to consider the
representation of the petitioner in the light of the principles laid down
in the case of Satya Narayan Upadhyay (supra). The petitioner has
challenged the rejection order dated 20-11-2004. Thus, it cannot be
held that the petition suffers from undue delay and laches and,
therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that
the writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay
and laches is not worth acceptance.
13. In regard to submission that the case of the writ-
petitioner is not at par with the case of Satya Narayan Upadhyay, it is
noted that Satya Narayan Upadhyay was appointed as a clerk, as is
manifest from the order passed by this Court in the writ petition. The
name of Satya Narayan Upadhyay was also included in the same
impugned order. In the first round of the writ petition, this Court
compared the case of the petitioner with the case of Satya Narayan
Upadhyay and also the petitioner being situated in similar footing,
was directed to be extended the same benefit. A bare perusal of the
case of the Satya Narayan Upadhyay leaves no manner of doubt that
the petitioner is situated on identical footing and hence, in terms of
the order dated 29-9-2004 passed in WP-9007-2004, he ought to
have been extended the same benefit.
14. Be it noted, on 17-5-1999 the petitioner having
disengaged was admittedly reinstated back on 27-5-1999. It did not
entail any break in service and even if it was so, admittedly Satya
Narayan Upadhaya was engaged on daily wages in the month of
September, 1999. Thus, there is no difference between the case of
the petitioner and Satya Narayan Upadhyay.
15. In regard to the submission of non-issuance of
appointment letter, it has not been issued in the cases of many daily
wagers, nevertheless, the order of termination mentions the name of
the petitioner at Sr. No.1 and after perusal of the record, the writ
Court has categorically ascribed a finding that the petitioner was
initially engaged on daily-wages on 23-03-1999.
16. In regard to submission of the appellants that Annexure-
P/3 appended to the writ petition being a fabricated document, in the
rejoinder the petitioner submitted that Annexure-P/3 is the same
which was relied on in the case of Satya Narayan Upadhyay
(supra) - WP-6495-2002 and no any objection was raised by the
appellants thereon. It is further stated that the petitioner has obtained
the certified copy of the said list from the record of the said writ
petition. It is clear from the order of the writ Court dated 6-8-2003,
wherein this Court in the case of Satya Narayan Upadhyay (supra)
has dealt with that list and relied on the same. It is profitable to refer
to para 2 of the said judgment, which is reproduced hereunder :
"It is not in dispute that the petitioner No.1, Satya
Narayan Upadhyay was appointed on daily wages as Clerk
on 30-9-1999 and the petitioner No.2 Deepak Pandey was
appointed as Driver-cum-Security Guard on 31-12-1999.
Their seniority is is given in the list Annexure-P-2/A at Sr.
No.4 and 9."
17. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that Annexure-P/3 is a fabricated document, cannot be
accepted. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed certain
orders passed in the case of other incumbents/employees to show that
the cases of other employees, similarly situated, were dismissed by
this Court.
18. We have perused the orders passed in the aforesaid cases
and find that the order dated 02-7-2004 passed in WP-3773-2004
[Lavkush Shukla vs. Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya and
others], that was the case of the petitioner who was engaged for a
specific project for Examination works for a couple of months and on
accomplishment of the said work, it was held that he had no right to
continue in employment. Thus, the said case is absolutely different
and in fact, Lavkush Shukla is not one of the employees, who was
terminated/disengaged vide order dated 19-6-2001. Similarly, the
case of Narendra Kumar in WP-4228-2004, cited by the learned
counsel for the appellants, is not similar to the case of Satya
Narayan Upadhyay (supra). The said case was not decided on
merits, but it was withdrawn. Narendra Kumar is also not one of the
persons covered by the impugned order of termination. Thus, on
that background alone, reliance placed upon by the learned counsel
for the appellants in those cases is of no assistance.
19. Regard being had to the aforesaid submissions, we do not
perceive any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge,
warranting any interference in the present intra-court appeal.
Accordingly, the the writ appeal being sans merits, stands
dismissed without any order as to costs.
(Mohammad Rafiq) (Vijay Kumar Shukla)
Chief Justice Judge
ac.
Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI
Date: 2021.09.22 14:38:55 +05'30'
