Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prakashchanra Kalosiya vs Public Health And Family Welfare ... on 13 December, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 13 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 16060 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
PRAKASHCHANRA KALOSIYA S/O SHRI ROSHANLAL JI,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SWEEPER
GRAM SUWASARA TEH. SUWASARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRASANNA R. BHATNAGAR AND SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR BHATT -
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. PUBLIC HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DEPARTMENT PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVT.OF
M.P. BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. AYUKT MAHODAYA SWASTYE SEWAYE BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SAMYUKT SANCHALAK SWASTYE SEWAYE
UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. MUKHAY CHIKITSA AVAM SWASTYE ADHIKARI
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHREY RAJ SAXENA - DY.A.G)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition is squarely
covered by order dated 6/12/2023 passed by co-ordinate Bench in the case of
Ashok Kumar Padeyar Vs. Public Health and Family Welfare Department (W.P.
No.18751/2022).
2. The co-ordinate Bench after relying on the judgment passed by the
Apex Court in the cases of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in
(2006) 4 SCC 1 and in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Suresh Kumar
Verma passed in SLP No.3492/1996 and also in Jivanlal Vs. Pravin
Krishna, Principal Secretary and Ors(Civil Appeal No.12080/2016) held as
under:-
6. A perusal of the aforesaid order clearly reveals that the
petitioner's case cannot be distinguished from the case of
Jivanlal (supra) as in the present petition also the same issue
of regularization of the petitioner after completing the 10 years
of service from the date of his initial appointment is involved
and in such circumstances, the impugned order dated
09.02.2022 is hereby quashed so far as it relates to non-grant
of benefits for the period from 2004 to 07.04.2016 and thus,
the respondents are directed to grant the benefit of
regularization to the petitioner from relevant date of 2004 upto
07.04.2016. The consequential benefits accrued to the
petitioner be also extended to him. Let the aforesaid exercise
be completed within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order.
3. Counsel for the State submits that another co-ordinate Bench at
Jabalpur in the case of Shriniwas Mishra Vs. State of M.P. and Ors. (W.P.
No.4802/2023) by order dated 1/3/2023 restricted the claims of the petitioner
for a period of 3 years and notional fixation has been directed to be given. The
said judgment has been passed in the light of the judgment passed by the Apex
Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat vs. Ashwini Ray and Ors. reported
in (2017) 3 SCC 436.
4 . After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the
aforesaid judgments, I am of the view that co-ordinate Bench in the case of
Shriniwas Mishra (supra) was considering the case of the employees who
were classified and not the case of the employees who have been regularized.
There is a distinction between regularization of service and permanent
classification. The case of the present petitioner is of regularization and,
therefore, his case is covered by the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench
in the case of Ashok Kumar Padeyar (supra).
5 . The petitioner was appointed by order dated 4/10/1996 and was
selected on contingency Sweeper w.e.f 1/4/1998 and thereafter, he was
regularized on 9/10/2018. According to petitioner, he is entitled for grant of
benefits after completing 10 years of service from the date of initial appointment
in the light of the order passed in the case of Ashok Kumar Padeyar (supra).
Admittedly, the representation of the petitioner has not been considered by the
respondents and, therefore, the present petition is disposed off with a direction
to Chief Medical Officer, Mandsaur to consider representation of the petitioner
and to pass orders for grant of benefits after completing 10 years of service
from the date of initial appointment in the light of the judgment passed by the
co-ordinate Bench in the case of Ashok Kumar Padeyar (supra) within period
of 3 months from the date of filing of the copy of the order. The petitioner shall
be granted the benefits as granted to Ashok Kumar Padeyar after completion of
10 years of service from the date of initial appointment and consequential
benefits accrued to the petitioner be also extended to him.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Pramod
