Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hari Babu Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 April, 2023
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 28 th OF APRIL, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 3521 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
HARI BABU JATAV S/O LATE SHRI DAYA RAM, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE GALI NO. 1
NAKA CHANDRAVADNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY MS. PRIYANKA TONK - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING,
GOVT. OF M.P., VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER MP HOUSING AND
INFRASTRUCTURE BOARD PARYAVAS BHAWAN
ARERA HILLS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MP HOUSING AND
INFRASTRUCTURE BOARD DEEN DAYAL NAGAR
BHIND ROAD, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DIVISION 1 MP HOUSING
AND INFRASTRUCTURE BOARD DEEN DAYAL
NAGAR BHIND ROAD, GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI HARISH DIXIT - ADVOCATE )
Th is petition coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE MILIND
RAMESH PHADKE passed the following:
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed being aggrieved by the discriminatory and arbitrary action on the part
of the respondents/authorities in not considering the case of the petitioner for
regularization, even though this Court vide order dated 10.11.2009 passed in
W.P. No. 2087 of 2005 has directed the authorities to consider the case of the
petitioner for regularization and pass appropriate orders keeping in view the
judgment passed in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. V.
Uma Devi and Ors. reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1.
From the record, it appears that in the light of the order passed by this
Court in W.P. No. 2087 of 2005, the case of the petitioner was considered by
the respondent/department vide annexure P/2 dated 25.02.2010 wherein it was
mentioned that at that point of time the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 255 in
the seniority list and as and when post would be available, the case of the
petitioner would be considered for his regularization.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that at present one post of
Chowkidar/peon is lying vacant in the department and though there are direction
by this Court as well as department has taken decision that the case of the
petitioner would be considered for regularization the same has not been done,
so directions may be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the
petitioner for regularization in the light of the vacancy which has arisen.
On the other hand, Shri Harish Dixit - Counsel for respondent submits
that the department has already expressed its view vide Annexuer P/2 dated
25.02.2010 that as and when there would be availability of the post, the case of
the petitioner would be considered, however, at present the name of the
petitioner is not on Sr. No.1 in the seniority list which would entail respondents
to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization therefore the contention
of the petitioner that his case be considered and he be regularized is
misconceived. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
After hearing Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court
deems it fit to dispose of this writ petition with direction to the respondents
that in case there are vacancy in the department and the department is
considering the case of the employees for their regularization as per their
seniority, then the case of the petitioner may also be considered keeping in view
his seniority. While considering the case of the petitioner, this aspect may also
be taken into consideration and it should be verified whether juniors to the
petitioner have been regularized or not and if it is found that juniors have been
regularized, appropriate measures be taken in the matter of petitioner.
With aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ar
ABDUR RAHMAN
2023.05.02 17:23:30 +05'30'
