Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Vinod Kumar Iwari on 10 April, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
M.Cr.C. No.8344/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 10th OF APRIL, 2023
REVIEW PETITION No. 27 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINIPAL
1. SERETARY MANRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
ADDITIONAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
2. (ADMINISTRATOR AND NON GAZETTED) FOREST DEPARTMENT
SATPURA BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER (TERRITORIAL) FOREST
3. DIVISION, BARWAHA, DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI KUSHAL GOYAL, LEARNED DY. ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
PETITIONERS/STATE.)
AND
VINOD KUMAR IWARI S/O SHRI RAMAIYYA TIWARI, AGED ABOUT
45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE RANGE FORES COLONY,
BARAWHA DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI HARISH JOSHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER.)
This review petition coming on for hearing this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
The review petitioners/State have filed the present review
petition seeking review of order dated 5.12.2019 whereby the writ
- : 2 :-
M.Cr.C. No.8344/2023
petition was disposed of by directing them to classify the
respondent/writ petitioner as skilled permanent employee in the pay-
scale of Rs.5000-100-8000/- in the light of circular dated 7.10.2016.
Despite the aforesaid order passed on consent given by the
review petitioners/State, writ appeal (W.A. No.289/2020) was filed
before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that the writ
petitioner was not entitled to be considered for classification as a
skilled permanent employee as per circular dated 7.10.2016 as the
writ petitioner was engaged as a contractual employee and not on
daily rated basis. The Writ Appellate Court permitted the
appellants/Department to withdraw the writ appeal with liberty to
file a review petition against the said order. Hence, the present
review petition has been filed with a delay of 1099 days and for
which an application for condonation of delay has also been filed.
According to the writ petitioner, Forest Department of the
State constituted a State Level Committee for implementation of
various projects. The Committee took a decision on 7.1.1997 for
appointment of Computer Programmers and Operators in the
Department on contract basis. Applications were invited. After
declaring successful in the examination as well as in Interview, writ
petitioner was appointed vide order dated 28.5.1999 and he joined
the duties on 9/10.6.1999 and thereafter his services were continued
from time to time and he was paid the daily wages fixed by the
Collector. The writ petitioner filed the writ petition seeking
regularization from the date of his initial appointment after
completing 10 years' service. The respondents/State came up with
- : 3 :-
M.Cr.C. No.8344/2023
the reply contending that in the year 2001 the contract appointment
was cancelled and thereafter from the year 2002 he is being paid the
wages on the basis of assessment of work on hourly basis, hence, he
is not entitled for regularization in the light of judgment passed by
the apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka V/s. Uma Devi
(Civil Appeal No. 3595-3612/1999 decided on 10.4.2006).
At the time of arguments in the writ petition, learned Govt.
Advocate appearing for the respondents/State pleaded that case of
the petitioner can be considered as per circular dated 7.10.2016 and
accordingly the writ petition was partly allowed/disposed of. In the
writ appeal the ground was taken that the petitioner was not
appointed against the vacant post, he was being paid on the basis of
job done on hourly basis, circular daed 7.10.2016 has been issued for
daily rated employees.
The word "daily rated" has not been defined in any statute as
well as in circular dated 7.10.2016. The words "daily rated
employee" means a person who is working as on 1.9.2016. There are
only two categories of employees in the State Government, firstly
who are working as regular employees and secondly who are
working on contract/daily wages/monthly wages, etc. The employees
who are not regular employees but engaged either on contract basis
on payment of monthly basis or hourly basis for years together, are
non-regular employees and all can be called as daily rated
employees. For daily rated employees or contract employees and for
all other types of employees who are working since last more than
10 years regularly, the State Government came up with the policy
- : 4 :-
M.Cr.C. No.8344/2023
dated 7.10.2016 to give them the status of permanent employee. As a
representative capacity, the words "daily rated employee" has been
used for all such non-regular employees who are being paid by the
Government Exchequer. It is the case of the respondents/State that
the writ petitioner was not paid for daily work but on the basis of
hourly working. No document has been filed regarding assessment
of his work on hourly basis and the mode of payment to him on
hourly basis. Along with the return in the writ petition, writ appeal as
well as in the present review petition, not a single document has
been filed to show the mode of payment to the writ petitioner.
Therefore, filing of writ appeal as well as the present review petition
is nothing but misuse of public money and wastage of precious time
of this Court to deny the benefit to the writ petitioner.
Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed with costs of
Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) payable to the respondent/writ
petitioner.
( VIVEK RUSIA )
JUDGE
Alok/-
Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV
Date: 2023.04.13 10:22:36 +05'30'
