Lata Namdev vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 7044 MP

                                                           1
                          IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                 ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2023
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 13991 of 2010

                         BETWEEN:-
                         LATA NAMDEV D/O LATE T.C. NAMDEV, AGED ABOUT
                         40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LDC IN THE CAPACITY OF
                         DAILY WAGES EMPLOYEE POSTED IN THE O/O ASSTT.
                         COMMIS QUARTER NO. A/2 VIJAY NAGAR JABALPUR
                         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                         (BY SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR PANDEY - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
                               SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TRIBAL WELFARE,
                               VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    COLLECTOR JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TRIBAL WELFARE
                               DEPARTMENT. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by Petitioner Lata Namdev being aggrieved of order dated 25.6.2009 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Jabalpur cancelling the order of regularization assigning the reason that the petitioner was not actually working on 31.12.1988, which is the cut-off-date for Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time:

5/2/2023 3:20:31 PM

regularization in terms of the General Administration Department Circular dated 9.1.1990.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1985 and her services were discontinued vide order dated 30.4.1985 issued by the District Organizer, Tribal Welfare Department, Jabalpur. In the said order, the name of the petitioner appears at Serial No.2. Thereafter, she had approached the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1234/1990 and vide order dated 9.1.1991, the Member of the State Administrative Tribunal had admitted the original application and directed that the applicant may be taken back in service as per

Circular dated 15.5.1987 or to show cause notice within three weeks. Petitioner was taken in service in the year 1991 and on the strength of that order, she claimed regularization, which was granted to the petitioner vide order Annexure R/2 dated 14.10.1993. After issuing an order of regularization in favour of the Petitioner, the impugned order could not have been passed withdrawing the same without following the principles of natural justice.

Learned Government Advocate for the State places on record copy of General Administration Department No.16/1188/1/Ve.Aa.Pra/89 dated 9.1.1990 to point out that only those persons are entitled to be considered for regularization, who were working upto 31.12.1998. Admittedly, the petitioner was not working as on 31.12.1988 and, therefore, she was not entitled to regularization. This aspect is clear from Paragraph No.3 of the Policy, which talks of deducting broken period of service while deciding the seniority of a person by the screening committee. Since the petitioner was not working as on 31.12.1988, she was not entitled to grant of regularization in terms of the Policy dated 9.1.1990.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time:

5/2/2023 3:20:31 PM

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner was since not working as on 31.12.1988, she could not have been regularized in terms of order dated 9.1.1990 issued by the General Administration Department. Thus, there was error apparent on the face of record when the order Annexure R/2 was issued by the Additional Collector, Jabalpur. This mistake apparent on the face of record has been rectified by issuance of the impugned order.

As far as the petitioner's claim for regularization is concerned, since the petitioner was continuously working with effect from 1991, her case can now be considered by the competent authority in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 and in terms of the General Administration Department issued by the State Government in this regard.

Accordingly, this writ petition can be disposed of by holding that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 25.6.2009 calling for any interference but at the same time, the respondents will be obliged to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of the General Administration Department Policy issued in this regard and also in the light of the judgment of State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi (supra) within a period of sixty days of receipt of certified copy of this order.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE amit

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time:

5/2/2023 3:20:31 PM