Rup Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6652 MP

                                                                        1
                                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                             AT JABALPUR
                                                                  BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                                                                ON THE 4th OF MAY, 2022

                                                        WRIT PETITION No. 28832 of 2021

                                           Between:-
                                  1.       RUP SINGH S/O KARAN SINGH , AGED ABOUT 35
                                           YEARS, OCCUPATION: DAILYWAGER CHOWKIDAR
                                           EMPLOYEE WARD NO.6 MOTIYA KUAN SATHI
                                           GULGAON RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                  2.       TEJ SINGH S/O KARAN SINGH , AGED ABOUT 40
                                           YEARS, OCCUPATION: CONTINGENCY EMPLOYEE
                                           R/O WARD NO.6, MOTIYA KUAN SATHI GULGAO
                                           RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                                           (BY SHRI MANISH TIWARI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                                           PETITIONERS)

                                           AND

                                  1.       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
                                           SECRETARY PANCHAYAT AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
                                           DEPT. MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
                                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                  2.       COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND SOCIAL
                                           JUSTICE DISTT-BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                  3.       DEPUTY DIRECTOR PANCHAYAT AND SOCIAL
                                           JUSTICE DISTT-VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                  4.       THE    COLLECTOR V I D I S H A DISTT-VIDISHA
                                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                                           (BY SHRI HITENDRA GOLHANI, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER FOR
                                           THE RESPONDENTS/STATE)

                                        This petition coming on for admission and I.R. this day, the court passed
                                  the following:
                                                                         ORDER

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to regularize their services with all consequential benefits in the light of judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and Ors. (2006) 4 Signature Not Verified SAN SCC 1.

Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN Date: 2022.05.05 12:48:29 IST Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are fully

qualified and holding the post of Choukidar since 09.06.1999 and 20.02.2004 respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondent No. 4 had already initiated proceeding for regularizing the services of the petitioners, which is evident from the order dated 20.02.2018 (Annexure P/8). In

view of the aforesaid, petitioners are eligible for being regularized. They have already represented the matter to the competent authority on 19.06.2018 (Annexure P/1) and Annexure P/2, which are still pending. In such circumstances, he prays that the direction may be issued to the respondents to decide the pending representations in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State has no objection to the innocuous prayer made by the petitioners and submitted that if directions are issued, the representations shall be considered in accordance with law.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the competent authority of the respondent is directed to decide representations (Annexure P/1 and Annexure P/2) in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction. Certified copy as per rules.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE vinay*

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN Date: 2022.05.05 12:48:29 IST