Hriday Kumar Jhariya vs Madhya Pradesh State Employment ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 12552 MP

                                                      1
                          IN    THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                            AT JABALPUR
                                                  BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE NANDITA DUBEY
                                           ON THE 4 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                         WRIT PETITION No. 18652 of 2023

                         BETWEEN:-
                         HRIDAY KUMAR JHARIYA S/O POHCHAND JHARIYA,
                         AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TERMINATE
                         ROJGAR SAHAYAK GRAM PANCHAYAT KARANPUR
                         RIYAT, JANPAD PANCHAYAT LAKHNADON, DISTRICT
                         SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                           .....PETITIONER
                         (BY SHRI H.K. GOLHANI - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    MADHYA PRADESH    STATE   EMPLOYMENT
                               GUARANTEE    COUNCIL    THROUGH   ITS
                               COMMISSIONER NARMADA BHAWAN 2ND
                               FLOOR "C" WING 59 ARERA HILLS BHOPAL
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    COLLECTOR       /    DISTRICT   PROGRAM
                               COORDINATOR, MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL
                               RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME,
                               SEONI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ADDITIONAL
                               DISTRICT PROGRAM COORDINATOR, MGNREGA
                               JILA PANCHAYAT DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         4.    PROGRAME     OFFICER, MGNREGA, JANPAD
                               PANCHAYAT   LAKHNADON DISTRICT SEONI
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         5.    GRAM    PANCHAYAT   KARANPUR    RAIYAT
                               THROUGH      SECRETARY/SARPANCH JANPAD
                               PANCHAYAT    LAKHNADON DISTRICT SEONI
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITIN KUMAR
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 8/5/2023
12:55:33 PM
                                                         2
                         (BY SHRI V.P. TIWARI - GOVT. ADVOCATE )

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the
                         following:
                                                                    ORDER

By this petition, the petitioner has claimed the following reliefs :-

1. That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 26.09.2013 passed by respondent no.5, in the interest of justice;

2. To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to restore the service of the petitioner on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak with all consequential benefits including back wages;

3. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case."

The facts of the case show that the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis as Gram Rajgar Sahayak in Gram Panchayat, Karanpur Riyat, Janpad Panchayat-Lakhnadon, District-Seoni on 18.08.2011. A show cause notice was issued to him on 30.05.2013 by the Gram Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Karanpur Riyat alleging the negligence of the petitioner. Reply filed by the petitioner was not found satisfactory and his service was terminated vide order dated 26.09.2013. At the same time, an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. was filed by one Santosh Bhalavi before the Judl.Magistrate Class-I, Lakhnadon against the then Sarpanch and the petitioner under Sections 420,467,468,120-B, 34 of IPC. The petitioner, however, acquitted in the said criminal case vide judgment dated 24.12.2022.

Admittedly the petitioner has not challenged the order of termination, but after being acquitted in the criminal case, has moved an Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITIN KUMAR CHOURASIA Signing time: 8/5/2023 12:55:33 PM

application/representation before the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Seoni to restore his service on the post of Rojgar Sahayak on account of acquittal from all the allegations vide judgment dated 24.11.2022. Since no decision has been taken by the respondents on the application/representation of the petitioner, he moved a writ petition no.3387/2023 seeking a direction to the respondents to decide his representation which was dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2023. Thereafter the writ appeal no.774/2023 was also filed challenging the order dated 13.02.2023. The same was, however, withdrawn on 10.07.2023. Now, again the petitioner is before this Court challenging the order of termination dated 26.09.2013.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to explain the delay caused in challenging the order of termination of 2013. The only reason assigned is that a criminal case was pending against him. The issue in criminal case was altogether different and the removal of the petitioner was not on the basis that the criminal case was pending against him. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was removed for the reason of pendency of criminal case. The petitioner was a contractual employee and his service was terminated by the impugned order. He has not challenged the same for a period about 10 years. The order has attained finality.

The Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power

Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman & Managing Director and another Vs. K. Thangappan and another (2006) 4 SCC 322 has held that delay and laches dis-entitled the petitioner to any relief, thus :-

"6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers

Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITIN KUMAR CHOURASIA Signing time: 8/5/2023 12:55:33 PM

under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party . Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad Vs. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports (1969) 1 SCC 185. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably."

In view of aforesaid, the contractual appointment of the petitioner cannot be revived after a period of 10 years. The petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(NANDITA DUBEY) JUDGE jk

Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITIN KUMAR CHOURASIA Signing time: 8/5/2023 12:55:33 PM