Ram Ji Lal Hindwar (Deleted) vs State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 2156 MP

                            1
 IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT GWALIOR
                         BEFORE
       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                 ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                WRIT PETITION No. 2584 of 2008

BETWEEN:-
1.    RAM JI LAL HINDWAR (DELETED) S/O SHRI
      NATHU RAM HINDWAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
      OCCUPATION: R/O QUARTER ROAD, SHANKAR
      PUR SHIVPURI, DISTT.SHIVPURI (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

2.    RAM JI LAL HINDWAR (DELETED) THR. LRS 1)
      SMT. PARVATI D/O LATE SHIR RAMJI LAL
      HINDWAR, W/O SHRI PAWAN YADAV, AGED
      ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE
      SHANKARPUR, JHINGRA, SHIVPURI (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

3.    RAM JI LAL HINDWAR (DELETED) THR. LRS 2)
      NARENDRA YADAV S/O LATE RAMJI LAL
      HINDWAR,,   AGED     ABOUT  37    YEARS,
      OCCUPATION: SERVICE SHANKARPUR, JHINGRA,
      SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    RAM JI LAL HINDWAR (DELETED) THR. LRS 3)
      KESAV YADAV S/O LATE SHRI RAMJI LAL
      HINDWAR,,    AGED    ABOUT   31    YEARS,
      OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB SHANKARPUR,
      JHINGRA, SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.    RAM JI LAL HINDWAR (DELETED) THR. LRS 4)
      JITENDRA YADAV S/O LATE SHRI RAMJI LAL
      HINDWAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
      STUDENT SHANKARPUR, JHINGRA, SHIVPURI
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

6.    RAM JI LAL HINDWAR (DELETED) THR. LRS 5)
      SMT. PREEMA BAI YADAV W/O LATE SHRI RAMJI
      LAL HINDWAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
      OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE SHANKARPUR,
      JHINGRA, SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                  .....PETITIONERS.
                             2
(BY SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    STATE OF M.P. THROUGH : THE SECRETARY,
      MINISTRY OF FOREST, VALLABH BHAWAN,
      BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SHIVPUIR
      CIRCLE SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH).

3.    THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER                    SOCIAL
      FORESTRY GUNA. (MADHYA PRADESH).

                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

          This petition coming on for HEARING this day, the court passed the

following:
                                        ORDER

Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was initially filed by an employee, who was appointed as Asstt. Draftsman in respondent department in the year 1987. As services of the petitioner were terminated in the year 1990, he raised a dispute before Labour Court wherein, vide Case No.31/91-ID Act. Learned Labour Court vide order dated 4.10.1991 had held retrenchment of the petitioner to be illegal and while setting aside the same, had directed for reinstatement of the petitioner.

Thereafter, as per averments made in the petition, the petitioner submitted his joining and he was allowed to work till November, 1993 and thereafter, he was restrained from carrying out his services and even stopped paying the salary.

Against said illegal action of the respondents whereby, the petitioner was not allowed to continue with the work, he preferred an Original Application No.137 of 1995 which later on was transferred to this Court and renumbered as

W.P.No.3359 of 2003 wherein, vide order dated 04.04.2005, this Court directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Registrar, Co- operative Societies Tamilnadu Vs. Umarani reported in 2004 (7) SCC 117 for re-engagement/regularization of the petitioner. In the order, there was no mention of the fact that, the petitioner was wrongly restrained from continuing his services and he was entitled for joining the services in pursuance to the order passed by learned Labour Court in the year 1991.

In the light of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner moved a representation but vide order dated 7.6.2005, the respondent authorities denied the benefit of regularization to the petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition being W.P.No.4980 of 2005 which was also disposed of vide order dated 10.07.2006 relegating the matter to the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. Against this order, the respondents/State went in appeal being W.A.No.296 of 2007 wherein, the order passed by learned Single Bench was maintained and the appellant therein, i.e. State was directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of order passed in the case of Uma Devi (Supra). Thereafter, since the order was not

complied with even after lapse of two months, the period which was granted by Division Bench for consideration of the case of petitioner, the petitioner preferred a Contempt Petition No.120 of 2007 wherein, in the light of the order passed by respondent authorities on 11.06.2007, contempt petition was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed as having rendered infructuous.

Then, again, representations were submitted by the petitioner to the

respondent authorities which were decided vide orders Annexure P/1 and P/10 respectively and claim of the petitioner for regularization was denied. Hence, this present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from bare perusal of orders annexures P/1 and P/10, it is evident that there is total non consideration of the case of petitioner with regard to regularization of his services as the impugned orders do not reflect the criteria on the basis of which, representations of the petitioner were considered nor any finding has been recorded with regard to the case of petitioner not falling within the purview of the observations made in the case of Uma Devi (Supra). Therefore, the impugned orders are perverse, illegal and deserves to be set-aside and fresh directions are required to be issued to the respondents for consideration of making payment to the wards of petitioner on the basis of minimum of his pay scale appended to his post, as earlier the case of petitioner for reinstatement was allowed by learned Labour Court holding his retrenchment to be illegal vide order dated 04.10.1991.

Per contra, counsel for the State submitted that the claim of reinstatement was raised by the petitioner only after passing of the impugned orders Annexure P/1 and P/10 and prior to that, there was no hue and cry with regard to his reinstatement in the light of the order passed by learned Labour Court. It was further argued that the petitioner was engaged on the basis of availability of work and since there was no work available, his services were no more required and hence, he was discontinued, thus, there is no force in the present petition, hence no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

During pendency of this petition, sole petitioner has expired and his LRS

are brought on record who are pursuing present petition. Hence, now only aspect which is left to be considered is whether, surviving LRs of sole petitioner are entitled to any monetary benefits which may accrue, if this petition is allowed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. After perusing record, it is seen that retrenchment of the petitioner since 31.3.1990 by oral order was held to be illegal and order of reinstatement was passed with 50% back-wages vide order dated 4.10.1991 by learned Labour Court. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his joining and worked till November, 1993 therefore, it could be said that order dated 4.10.1991 passed by Labour Court for reinstatement of the petitioner was executed.

Thereafter, he was stopped from working and even he was not paid salary. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, an original application was preferred by the deceased employee which on transfer to this Court was renumbered as W.P.No.3359 of 2003. The said petition was decided vide order dated 05.04.2005 directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for re-engagement/regularization in the light of of Judgment rendered by Hon/ble Supreme Court in the case of Umarani (Supra). But since claim of the petitioner was denied by the respondent authorities, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.4980 of 2005 which came to be decided vide order dated 10.07.2006 whereby, once again respondent authorities were directed to consider the case of petitioner with regard to regularization in service now in the light of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (Supra). Against the order passed by learned Single Judge, W.A.No.296 of 2007 was filed by respondents/State which was dismissed vide order dated 03.10.2007 directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of

the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (Supra). But since the case of petitioner was not considered, a Contempt Petition No.120 of 2007 was preferred which was disposed of vide order dated 07.04.2008 in the light of the order passed on 11.6.2007 by respondent authorities. Thereafter, the representations moved by the petitioners, were decided vide impugned orders.

But the fact which remained to be adjudicated was that the petitioner who was restrained from carrying out his services in the year 1993, challenged the same before erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application which later on, was heard by this Court in W.A.No.3359 of 2003 in the final order, there is no observation with regard to letting the petitioner or allowing him to continue with his services rather, observations were made with regard to consideration of the case of petitioner for re-engagement/regularization and as such, there was no direction of this Court while passing order dated 05.04.2005 in W.P.No.3359 of 2003 for reinstating the petitioner after he was

orally restrained to work since November, 1993. Even after passing of this order, there was no agitation so far as allowing the petitioner to work with the department and since there was no specific directions with regard to allowing the petitioner to work, the respondent authorities after due consideration of the representations, have denied the claim of petitioner. Here it is pertinent to mention that harping of counsel for the petitioner on the order passed by learned Labour Court in the year 1991 is of no consequence as it was already executed and the petitioner was reinstated in the light of that order. But after a period of more than two years, he was again restrained from carrying out his services which gave fresh cause of action to the petitioner to had raised his

grievance before the Court on earlier point of time but no orders have been passed in regard to that. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that at this juncture, the relief of monetary benefits in view of nature of the temporary work which may had accrued to the petitioner, if he had been allowed to work, cannot be considered.

So far as case of regularization of petitioner is concerned, from the order passed in Contempt Petition No.120 of 2007, there is mention of one order passed on 11.06.2007 whereupon, the petitioner was held not entitled for regularization in view of circular dated 16.05.2007 and since the same has not been challenged by the petitioner or his LRs at any point of time, the contention of the petitioner that the matter may be relegated back to the authorities for fresh consideration, cannot be acceded to.

In view of the above, present petition being sans merits and is hereby dismissed.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Rks

RAM KUMAR SHARMA 2023.02.07 19:07:02 +05'30'