Umesh Kumar Arya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 9893 MP

                              1
 IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT GWALIOR
                         BEFORE
       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                    ON THE 30 th OF JUNE, 2023
                WRIT PETITION No. 11058 of 2021

BETWEEN:-
UMESH KUMAR ARYA S/O SHRI SOHANLAL ARYA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED
D-110 VINAY NAGAR SECTOR 4 GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                    .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI D.P. SINGH - ADVOCATE )

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
      SECRETARY, URBAN ADMINISTRATION AND
      DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MANTALAYA,
      GOVT. OF M.P. VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
      (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    THE  COMMISSIONER, DIRECTORATE URBAN
      ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT , PALIKA
      BHAWAN NEAR 6 NO. BUS STOP , SHIVAJI NAGAR
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    THE         COMMISSIONER/ADMINISTRATOR,
      MUNICIPAL CORPORATION , GWALIOR DIVISION
      DIST. GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,       CITY CENTER,
      GWALIOR   THROUGH ITS        COMMISSIONER
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.    SHRI HARISH CHANDRA SHUKA, POSTED AT
      S T E N O G R A P H E R THR.      MUNICIPAL
      C O R P O R AT I O N CITY CENTER,  GWALIOR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

6.    SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR RAJORIYA, POSTED AT
      S T E N O G R A P H E R THR. MUNICIPAL
      COR PORTATI ON CITY CENTER     GWALIOR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                     2

7.    SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR SAXENA , POSTED AT
      S T E N O G R A P H E R THR.     MUNICIPAL
      C O R P O R AT I O N CITY CENTER  GWALIOR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                           .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI NAKUL KHEDKAR - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS NO.3
AND 4 )

      This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                     ORDER

The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

1 . That, the order impugned dated 05.01/03.2021 passed in Case No.1/21/2/10/ Sa.Pra./2021 by the Respondent No.4 may kindly be quashed with a further direction to the Respondent no.4 to regularize the services of the petitioner in view of the recommendations made by the Mayor-in- Council from time to time and keeping in view of the directions issued by the State Government. 2 . That, the respondent no.4 further directed to decide the intervening period of the petitioner in accordance with law and keeping in view of the recommendations made by Mayor-in-Council from time to time for absorption of his services over the Class 3 post i.e. Time Keeper, in the interest of justice.

3. That, the respondents by further commanded to quash the order dated 5.8.2015 and the resolution no.103 contained in Annexure P/24 w i th regard to regularizing the services of the Respondent no.5 to 7, which is de-horse the rules.

4. Cost of the petition be awarded or any other order or direction deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be issued in favour of the petitioner.

At the outset learned counsel for the petitioners placed the order dated 09.12.2020 passed in WP No.2229/2015 (Govind Singh Sengar and others vs. state of M.P. and Others) and submits that the matter is covered by the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. He seeks parity viz a viz the said order. Learned counsel for the respondent could not dispute the said fact. A relevant discussion of the said order as here under:-

'In view of the aforesaid settled legal proposition and also the fact that the petitioners have already participated in the selection process, now, they have no right to challenge the aforesaid condition. Accordingly, the prayer made to challenge aforesaid condition is also rejected.

As far as recommendations of proposal being made by Mayor in Council with respect to continuation of services of petitioners is concerned, the State Govt vide its letter dated 8.9.2014 has already asked respondent No.2 to take final decision in the matter being competent authority with respect to continuation of service of class IV employees. Admittedly, aforesaid decision has not been taken till date. In such circumstances, this court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to take final decision in the matter with respect to continuation of services of the petitioners in view of the recommendations made by Mayor in Council and also the directions issued by the State Govt. vide letter dated 8.9.2014. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as far as the relief which are being claimed by the petitioners is concerned, but disposed of to the extent that the respondent No.2 may take final decision in the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and communicate the

outcome to the petitioners.

The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

CC as per rules.' In view of the aforesaid, same petition stands disposed of in the manner as directed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Govind Singh Sengar (supra) that order shall apply mutatis mutandis in the present case order.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Pawar Digitally signed by ASHISH PAWAR

ASHISH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=022bf22fa73f89c6f6d933de1146a2

PAWAR 90a49b3c94df18221974589b5a02e0fc6b, pseudonym=FF3392C76BA2BA90DA179B6 8ABDF35708A13E2D2, serialNumber=45B88E29CF4FECAAA753C8 CA8740AD0DA9C3E498ADE24A066F820E2 4846008AE, cn=ASHISH PAWAR Date: 2023.07.03 15:45:22 +05'30'