Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neknarayan Karosiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 November, 2023
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 30th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 29133 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. NEKNARAYAN KAROSIYA S/O SHRI
MULAYAM CHAND KAROSIYA, AGED
ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE
JOB R/O LIG -63 DHNAWANTRI NAGAR
JABALPUR DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. BENI PRASAD KAROSIYA S/O SHRI
MULAYAM CHAND KAROSIYA, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE
R/O LIG-63 DHANWANTRI NAGAR
JABALPUR DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SMT. ARADHANA KAROSIYA W/O SHRI
NEK NARAYAN KAROSIYA, AGED ABOUT
43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE R/O LIG
63 DHANWANTRI NAGAR JABALPUR
DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SAKET AGARWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
SPORTS AND YOUTH WELFARE
DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JOINT DIRECTOR SECRETARIATE SPORTS
AND YOUTH WELFARE DEPARTMENT T.T.
NAGAR STADIUM BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2
3. COLLECTOR JABALPUR DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT SPORTS AND YOUTH WELFARE
OFFICER JABALPUR OFFICE OF DISTRICT
SPORTS AND YOUTH WELFARE
DEPARTMENT RANI DURGAWATI
STADIUM RANITAL JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SWAPNIL GANGULY - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed seeking the following reliefs :-
i. Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the relevant records
from the possession of the respondents for perusal of this
Hon'ble Court;
ii. Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ in
the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to allow the
petitioners to work in the Respondent Department along with all
consequential benefits;
iii. Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the respondents to
regularize the services of the petitioners or in the alternative, the
respondents may be directed to classify the services of the
petitioners as permanent employee under the Policy of 2016;
iv. Hon'ble Court further be pleased to direct the respondents to
release the salary of the petitioners w.e.f. November, 2020, as
the respondents have not paid the petitioners salary w.e.f.
November, 2020;
v. Any other suitable relief deems fit in the facts and circumstances
of the case may also kindly be granted together with the cost of
this petition.
2. It submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were
appointed as daily wagers for a period of 89 days and the last order in
this regard was passed on 26.6.2015 but even thereafter petitioners
were allowed to work and by issuing different written orders, duties
were assigned. The last written order by which the duties were
assigned to the petitioner was issued on 6.6.2016. It is further
submitted that on 5.4.2021 the petitioners were directed not to join the
duties and accordingly they preferred W.P.No.8772/2021. The said
writ petition was decided by order dated 11.6.2021 with a direction to
the respondents to decide the representation. Thereafter, by impugned
order dated 27.8.2021 the representation has been decided and it has
been directed that in case if the petitioners are interested to work as an
outsourced employee then they can submit their joining in the office
otherwise it shall be presumed that they are not interested to work.
3. Since the representation was not decided objectively, therefore, the
petitioners preferred contempt petition which was registered as CONC
No.1733/2021. However, the said contempt petition was dismissed
with liberty to the petitioners to assail the order dated 27.8.2021.
Accordingly, the present petition has been filed.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that in spite of availability of vacant and
sanctioned post, the respondents have not regularized the service of the
petitioners. Their service cannot be terminated orally and to buttress
his contention counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the order
dated 9.12.2021 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Raghuvasha Prasad Dwivedi Vs. State of M.P. and others,
passed in W.P.No.24157/2021 in which it has been held that there
cannot be any oral termination and if the authority wants to terminate
the service of the petitioners then specific order should be passed. It
was further directed that since no order of termination has been passed,
therefore, the petitioner therein shall be treated to be in service and
shall be allowed to perform his duties. It is submitted that even in the
present petition, no written order of termination of service of the
petitioners has been issued, therefore, they are liable to be continued in
service.
5. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for the State.
It is submitted by Shri Ganguly that petitioners have not assailed the
order dated 27.8.2021 by which it has been held that in case if
petitioners are interested to work as outsourced employee then they
should give their joining. Therefore, it is submitted that in the teeth of
order dated 27.8.2021 petitioners are not entitled for any relief. It is
further submitted that if petitioners are of the view that they have
acquired some status by virtue of working for more than 240 days in a
calendar year then they should approach the Labour court for
establishing their rights.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. By order dated 27.8.2021, the petitioners were directed that in case if
they are interested to work as an outsourced employees then they can
submit their joining in the office. Thus, it is clear that the authorities
must have taken a policy decision to take the services of outsourced
employees. The said policy decision has not been challenged in the
writ petition.
8. So far as verbal termination of service of the petitioners is concerned,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment relied upon by
the petitioner in the case of Raghuvasha Prasad Dwivedi (supra), is
distinguishable.
9. In the present case, admittedly no order of their appointment for a
period of 89 days was passed after 26.6.2015. It is the case of the
petitioners that even in absence of any written order of appointment
they were allowed to perform their duties. Thus, it is clear that
appointment of the petitioners was verbal and for withdrawal of the
verbal direction, no written order of termination is required. However,
it is the case of the petitioners that they have worked for more than 240
days and it is also one of the prayers of the petitioners that they may be
regularized as they have worked for more than 240 days.
10. Looking to the prayer(s) sought by the petitioners, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the petitioners have an efficacious remedy of
approaching the Labour Court for their classification on the ground
that they have worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. No
relief can be granted to the petitioners under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
11. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners
that if they so desire then they may approach the Labour Court for
redressal of their grievance.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
HEMANT SARAF
2023.11.30 19:21:07
+05'30'
HS
