Anil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 15996 MP

                                                             1
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT GWALIOR
                                                      WP No. 26977 of 2022
                                           (ANIL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                          Dated : 02-12-2022
                                Mr. Ankur Maheshwari, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                Mr. S.K. Sharma, Government Advocate for the State.
                                This petition has been filed against the order dated 30.09.2022 by which
                          the service of the petitioner has been discontinued on the ground that he has
                          already completed five years of service as daily wager.
                                The petitioner has relied upon a resolution passed by MIC (Annexure P-

                          1) according to which, it was resolved that the service of daily wagers may be
                          regularized. However, no order has been passed in this regard.
                                There is nothing in the writ petition to show that the appointment of
                          petitioner was legal and not illegal. In the light of the judgment passed by
                          Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs.
                          Uma Devi (3) and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 nothing has been
                          placed on record to show that the services of the petitioner can be regularized.
                                Petitioner cannot be given the benefit of Viniyamitikaran. As per
                          Viniyamitikaran scheme of the State Government, daily wagers who are working

                          from 15.05.2007 and are still in service on 01.07.2016 were entitled for the
                          benefit of Viniyamitikaran scheme. Since the petitioner is not covered by the
                          said clause, therefore, his case cannot be considered under the Viniyamitikaran
                          scheme.
                                Also it is next contended by the counsel for the petitioner that since the
                          petitioner has already completed continuous service of 240 days in a calendar
                          year, therefore, his service could not be terminated without making payment of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 02-Dec-22
4:50:47 PM
                                                               2
                          retrenchment compensation.
                                 The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to
                          be attractive but it involves disputed questions of fact. Accordingly, the
                          petitioner has remedy to approach the labour Court for challenging the order
                          dated 30.09.2022.
                                 At this stage, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that since the
                          Municipal Corporation, Morena is in need of Safaikarmchari, therefore, they
                          may issue fresh advertisement for recruitment of safaikarmcharis and in case, if
                          such an advertisement is issued then the Municipal Corporation, Morena be
                          directed to give preference to the petitioner.

                                 On this limited issue, issue notice to the respondent No.2 on payment of

process fee by RAD as well as Ordinary mode within seven working days. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.

List along with W.P.No.25557/2022.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE

bj/-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 02-Dec-22 4:50:47 PM