Vinay Kumar Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2207 MP

                                                                   1
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                                               BEFORE
                                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                     ON THE 17th OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                                                 WRIT PETITION No. 28456 of 2021

                                 Between:-
                                 VINAY KUMAR DUBEY S/O SHRI RAJMANI
                                 PRASAD DUBEY , AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
                                 OCCUPATION: PRESENTED POSTED AS PEON AT
                                 TRIBAL KANYA ASHRAM BAMURI, DISTT. SIDHI
                                 R/O VILL. JAMODI, POST PANWAR, DISTT.
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                                 (NONE FOR THE PETITIONER)

                                 AND

                      1.         THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. ITS
                                 SECRETARY TRIBAL AND SCHEDULE CASTEE
                                 DEVELOPMENT     DEPARTMENT   VALLABH
                                 BHAWAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      2.         COMMISSIONER      TRIBAL  DEVELOPMENT
                                 D EPARTM EN T SATPUDA BHAWAN BHOPAL
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      3.         DIVISIONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER TRIBAL AND
                                 SCHEDULE    CASTE   DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
                                 REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      4.         ASSISTANT     COMMISSIONER      TRIBAL
                                 DEVELOPMENT      DEPARTMENT DISTT.SIDHI
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      5.         C O L L E C T O R S I D H I DISTT.SIDHI                (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                                 (BY SHRI JITENDRA SHRIVASTAVA, PL FOR STATE )

                              T h is petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
                      following:
                                                                    ORDER

None for the petitioner.

Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, learned PL for the respondent/State.

Petitioner is claiming benefit of law laid down in the case of Smt. Usha Ranawat Vs. State of M.P & others. Petitioner's contention is that he was initially appointed on the post of Peon on collector rate Signature SAN Not Verified vide order dated 29/11/1997 and was regularized vide order dated 04/03/2014 (Annexure P-4) but in Digitally signed by TARUN KUMAR the seniority list his initial date of appointment is mentioned as 04/03/2014, which is date of SALUNKE Date: 2022.02.21 17:03:48 IST

regularization and not initial date of appointment.

Petitioner is claiming parity with the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat Vs. State of M.P & others) decided on 18/12/2008. However, fact of the matter is that ratio of law laid down in the case of Smt. Usha Ranawat is that in that case certain teachers were appointed on fixed pay on probation/trial for a period of two years. They were not granted

increment for that period. In that context the Division Bench held that on successful completion of probation period rendered by the petitioner therein, the probation/trial will be computed for the purpose of grant of increment.

Facts of the present case are different, petitioner was admittedly appointed as daily wager, he has no vested right or lein on the post. He was regularized on 04/03/2014. Therefore he became permanent employee/holder of post in March, 2014. Therefore, there is no ambiguity in the gradation list/seniority list showing his initial date of appointment as 04/04/2014 because the date mentioned in the Column 6 is date of first appointment in the cadre/post and not date of initial appointment as a daily wager. Therefore, there is no ambiguity in the description given in the seniority list (Annexure P-5) and petitioner is not entitled to claim benefit of ratio of law laid down in case of Usha Ranawat (supra). Petition fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE tarun