Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohd. Jama vs Water Resources Department on 8 November, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 8th NOVEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 12193 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
MOHD. JAMA S/O AHMED KHAN, AGED
58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TIME
KEEPER R/O CHANDRA SHEKHAR
AZAD NAGAR, BHABHRA, DISTT.
ALIRAJPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(MS. DIXITA GUPTA, COUNSEL THE PETITIONER).
AND
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
1. (JAL SANSADHAN), VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
ENGINEER IN CHIEF, DEPARTMENT
OF WATER RESOURCES, (JAL
2. SANSADHAN), TULSI NAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
DEPARTMENT OF WATER
3. RESOURCES, (JAL SANSADHAN),
DIVISION ALIRAJPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MUKESH PARWAL, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS/STATE).
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 11/8/2023
3:49:48 PM
-2-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 22.08.2023
Pronounced on : 08.11.2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut
Arvind Dharmadhikari passed the following:
ORDER
With consent of parties, this case is taken up and disposed of finally.
2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has not challenged any particular order but the non compliance of
the guidelines and circulars issued by the State Government and various
orders passed in the case of similarly situated employees and not regularizing
the petitioner from the date he became eligible.
3. Petitioner's contention is that he was initially appointed in the year
1986 as daily wager in the Irrigation Department, Sub Division, Bhabhra on
the post of Time Keeper. After initial appointment, he is continuously
working in the department since 01.12.1987 for a period of more than 30
years. During the entire service, once his services were discontinued by the
department without following due procedure. He approached the Labour
Court, Mandsaur. The learned Labour Court vide order dated 27.06.1997
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 11/8/2023
3:49:48 PM
(Annexure P/s) decided the case in favour of the petitioner and he was
reinstated in service with full back wages and directed to perform the duties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends since he had put in more
than thirty years of service as daily wagers, his case was required to be
considered for regularization in terms of the law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi
(2006) 4 SCC 1 and the circular dated 16.05.2007 issued thereafter by the
State and other similar circulars.
5. In the year 2016, State came out with a new circular dated 07/10/2016
providing for classification of daily wagers as unskilled, semi-skilled and
skilled prescribing pay scales for them and also provisions for grant of
increments etc.
6. It is submitted that the petitioner was chosen for this classification and
had been given that benefit. But, the bone of contention is that petitioner's
case should have been considered in light of the law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra). It is also submitted that
petitioner's case for regularization should be first considered in the light of
the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra)
after preparing a proper seniority list and sequentially considering the case of
petitioner in order of his seniority against vacant posts rather than adopting
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 11/8/2023
3:49:48 PM
an arbitrary approach. It is further submitted that now State is taking a stand
that since petitioner has already been classified as permanent, he has no
claim for regularization.
7. Learned Government Advocate for the State supports the action of the
State and submits that once petitioner has been classified as permanent in
terms of the GAD circular dated 07.10.2016, he has no subsisting grievance
and petition may be dismissed as not maintainable.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, this Court is of the opinion that after putting in more than 10 years of
service, petitioner's case ought to have been considered for regularization in
terms of the circular of the State Government dated 16.05.2007 issued in
light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi
(supra). There is no material available on record to show that petitioner's
case was considered by the respondent authorities in light of the guidelines
laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra).
Thus, prima facie, there is violation of petitioner's rights to be considered for
regularization.
9. Thus, this petition is disposed of with the direction that respondents
shall consider the case of the petitioner by deciding his representation dated
18.02.2019 for regularization on the basis of the guidelines laid down by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 11/8/2023
3:49:48 PM
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra). They shall
complete this exercise within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order. If petitioner is found to be suitable on the
touchstone of the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Uma Devi (supra) and as contained in the circular dated 16.05.2007, then
shall pass appropriate order and if he is not found suitable, then shall
communicate the reasons for not granting the benefit of regularization to the
petitioner within the aforesaid time.
10. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)
vidya
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 11/8/2023
3:49:48 PM
