Narayan Kumar Rajak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 15199 MP

                      1      W.P. No.419/2011 & Other Connected Matters



IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
            AT JABALPUR
                         BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
             ON THE 14th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
               WRIT PETITION No. 419 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
SUNDER SINGH CHOUHAN S/O SHRI BEN SINGH
CHOUHAN,    AGED  ABOUT     35   YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PEON M.P.WATER AND LAND
MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                         .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY AGRAWAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI SARANSH
KULSHRESTHA - ADVOCATE )

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
      THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
      PANCHAYAT & RURAL DEVELOPMENT
      DEPARTMENT    VALLABH   BHAWAN
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    THE DIRECTOR, M.P. WATER & LAND
      MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE KOLAR ROAD
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI K.S. BAGHEL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

               WRIT PETITION No. 418 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
GHASIRAM S/O SHRI KHEMCHAND, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER
M.P.WATER    AND    LAND   MANAGEMENT
INSTITUTE, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                         .....PETITIONER
(NONE FOR THE PETITIONER )

AND
                       2    W.P. No.419/2011 & Other Connected Matters


1.    THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH THE
      PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT AND
      RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
      VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

2.    THE DIRECTOR M.P. WATER & LAND
      MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE KOLAR ROAD
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI K.S. BAGHEL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

                WRIT PETITION No. 421 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
RANJAN SINGH THAKUR S/O SHRI CHAIN
SINGH THAKUR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PEON M.P. WATER AND LAND
MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                       .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY AGRAWAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI SARANSH
KULSHRESHTHA - ADVOCATE )

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
      THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
      PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
      DEPARTMENT,   VALLABH    BHAWAN
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    THE DIRECTOR M.P. WATER AND LAND
      MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE KOLAR ROAD,
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI K.S. BAGHEL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

                WRIT PETITION No. 422 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
NAVAL KISHORE PRAJAPATI S/O SHRI RAM
                       3      W.P. No.419/2011 & Other Connected Matters


CHARAN PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PEON, M.P.WATER AND LAND
MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                         .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY AGRAWAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI SARANSH
KULSHRESHTHA - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT
      AND       RURAL      DEVELOPMENT
      DEPARTMENT,     VALLABH    BHAWAN
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    THE DIRECTOR M.P. WATER & LAND
      MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE KOLAR ROAD
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI K.S. BAGHEL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

               WRIT PETITION No. 1226 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
NARAYAN KUMAR RAJAK S/O SHRI MADAN
LAL RAJAK, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OFFICE
EQUIPMENT OPERATOR WATER AND LAND
MANAGMENT INSTITUTE BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                         .....PETITIONER
(NONE FOR THE PETITIONER )

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
      THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
      PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
      DEPARTMENT,   VALLABH    BHAWAN
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    DIRECTOR M.P. WATER AND LAND
      MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE KOLAR ROAD,
                       4    W.P. No.419/2011 & Other Connected Matters


      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI K.S. BAGHEL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

               WRIT PETITION No. 1228 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
FAKIR CHAND S/O SHRI KHUSHI LAL RAM,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
E.P.A.B.X. OPERATOR WATER & LAND
MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                       .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY AGRAWAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI SARANSH
KULSHRESHTHA - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT &
      RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
      VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

2.    THE DIRECTOR M.P. WATER & LAND
      MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE KOLAR ROAD
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI K.S. BAGHEL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

               WRIT PETITION No. 4952 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
      RAMESH CHANDRA BUNDELA S/O DEV
      CHANDRA BUNDELA, AGED ABOUT 39
      YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER WATER
      AND LAND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)      DEAD
      THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
(i)    JYOTI BUNDELA WD/O SHRI RAMESH
       CHANDRA BUNDELA AGED ABOUT 51
                         5    W.P. No.419/2011 & Other Connected Matters



         YEARS R/O HOUSE NO.53, NEAR SHANI
         MANDIR, PATHRA ROAD, BARKHEDI
         (MADHYA PRADESH)

(ii)     VANDANA MALVIYA D/O LATE SHRI
         RAMESH CHANDRA BUNDELA, AGED
         ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O HOUSE NO.53
         NEAR SHANI MANDIR, PATHRA ROAD
         BARKHEDI (MADHYA PRADESH)

(iii)    SHALINI BUNDELA D/O LATE SHRI
         RAMESH CHANDRA BUNDELA AGED
         ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O HOUSE NO.53
         NEAR SHANI MANDIR, PATHRA ROAD
         BARKHEDI (MADHYA PRADESH)

(iv)     SATISH BUNDELA S/O LATE SHRI
         RAMESH CHANDRA BUNDELA AGED
         ABOUT 27 YEARS R/O R/O HOUSE NO.53
         NEAR SHANI MANDIR, PATHRA ROAD
         BARKHEDI (MADHYA PRADESH)

(v)      MANISH BUNDELA S/O LATE SHRI
         RAMESH CHANDRA BUNDELA AGED
         ABOUT 25 YEARS R/O R/O HOUSE NO.53
         NEAR SHANI MANDIR, PATHRA ROAD
         BARKHEDI (MADHYA PRADESH)



                                                         .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY AGRAWAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI SARANSH
KULSHRESHTHA - ADVOCATE )

AND
1.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
        THROUGH : PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
        PANCHAYAT & RURAL DEVELOPMENT
        DEPARTMENT    VALLABH   BHAWAN
        BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.      DIRECTOR   M.P.WATER  AND  LAND
        MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE KOLAR ROAD,
        BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI K.S. BAGHEL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
                                                   6          W.P. No.419/2011 & Other Connected Matters


............................................................................................................................................
"Reserved on : 01.09.2023"
"Pronounced on:14.09.2023 "
           These petitions having been heard and reserved for order, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
                                                             ORDER

By this common order, W.P. No.418/2011, W.P. No.421/2011, W.P. No.422/2011, W.P. No.1226/2011, W.P. No.1228/2011 and W.P. No.4952/2011 shall be disposed of.

2. For the sake of convenience, facts of W.P. No.419/2011 shall be considered.

3. This Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:

"(i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the orders Annexures P/7 and P/9 issued by respondent No.2.

(ii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay all consequential benefits of peon to the petitioner from the date of regularization i.e. 13.06.1997.

(iii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay difference of salary alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of regularization of services i.e. 13.06.1997 .

Alternatively the petitioner's services be regularized in view of the directions issue by the Apex Court in Uma Devi's case.

(iv) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other writ or directions looking to the facts and circumstances of the case be pleased to award cost of the petition."

4. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged show cause notice

dated 05.10.2010 and 02.11.2010. It is the case of petitioner that earlier he was appointed as EPS Helper on daily wages. According to petitioner, the said appointment was against sanctioned and vacant post. Since services of petitioner were found satisfactory, therefore in pursuance to decision of State Government to regularize the services of daily wagers, respondents constituted a Committee consisting of respondent No.2 and Administrative Officer, WALMI, who examined service record of petitioner and by resolution dated 03.06.1997, services of petitioner on regular pay scale of Peon of Rs.750-945/- was affirmed and regularization order was issued on 13.06.1997. It is submitted that one Prem Narayan Bairagi, who was also regularized alongwith petitioner is still performing his duties as a regular peon. Although there was no irregularity in regularization of services of petitioner in spite of that respondent No.1 issued a letter dated 24.03.1999 under a wrong notion and directed to cancel order of regularization forthwith. Accordingly, respondent No.2 issued an order dated 01.06.1999 and cancelled order of regularization of petitioner.

5. Being aggrieved by order passed by respondents, petitioner approached Civil Court, Bhopal by filing Civil Suit, which was registered as C.S. No.48-A/2000. It was decreed by judgment dated 17.04.2001 and order of cancellation of regularization was set aside.

6. Respondents preferred an appeal under Section 96 of CPC and the said appeal was also dismissed by 7th Additional District Judge, Bhopal by judgment dated 24.11.2001. Thereafter, Second Appeal No.102/2002 preferred by respondents was also dismissed by High Court by judgment dated 05.08.2003. Civil Appeal No.2715/2005 was also dismissed by Supreme Court by order dated 14.07.2010. Thus, it is the case of

petitioner that regularization of his services was affirmed up to the stage of Supreme Court. However, respondents have once again initiated proceedings by issuing a letter dated 05.10.2010 mentioning therein that by order dated 03.06.1997, petitioner was appointed as an adhoc employee on temporary basis. On examination, it has been found that such appointment was illegal and therefore, by order dated 01.06.1999 said order was cancelled. It was also mentioned that although order dated 01.06.1999 was set aside by Civil Court, however, in a Civil Appeal, 7th Additional District Judge, Bhopal had clarified that respondents are free to take a fresh decision after giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner and accordingly, petitioner was called upon to submit his representation so that final decision in relation to order dated 01.06.1999 can be taken. Petitioner submitted his reply pointing out that subsequent proceedings are nothing but amounts to contempt of Court, therefore, it should be dropped. However, petition was filed while proceedings were pending and no final order was passed. It appears that during pendency of writ petition, petitioner has been given status of Sthai Karmi by order dated 23.06.2018. The said order has also been placed on record by petitioner as Annexure P/16. However, petitioner has not challenged the said order.

7. Per contra, respondents have supported their action. Counsel for respondents by referring to judgment dated 24.11.2001 passed by 7th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in RCA No.19A/2001 submitted that trial Court had cancelled order dated 01.06.1999 on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice. However, 7th Additional District Judge, Bhopal while disposing of appeal had clearly mentioned that respondents shall be free to pass a fresh order after giving an

opportunity of hearing to petitioner. Accordingly, a show cause notice was also issued to petitioner. It is further submitted that in the meanwhile, petitioner has been given the status of Sthai Karmi. Since said order has not been challenged, therefore, petitioner is bound by the same.

8. Heard the learned counsel for parties.

9. By order dated 03.06.1997, Annexure P/1, petitioner was appointed as an adhoc employee on temporary basis. The said order was cancelled by order dated 01.06.1999.

10. Order dated 03.06.1997 reads as under:-

"dk;kZy; lapkyd ty ,oa Hkwfe izca/k laLFkku u;k okYeh ifjlj dfy;klksr cka/k iksLV ckDl ua- 538] Hkksiky Øekad @okYeh@03 fnukad @ @97 vkns'k laLFkku esa nSfud osru ij dk;Zjr Jh lqUnj flag pkSgku dh fu;qfDr Hk`R; ds miyC/k Lohd`r in ij prqFkZ Js.kh lsok esa Hk`R;@pkSdhnkj ds in ij vLFkkbZ rkSj ij osrueku #- 750&12&870&15&945 izkjfEHkd osru #-750@& rFkk laLFkku }kjk le; le; ij Lohd`r HkRrs ij LFkkukiUu :i ls muds dk;Zxgz .k djus dh fnukad ls fuEukafdr 'krksZ ij dh tkrh gSA ¼1½ mi;qZDr O;fDr dh lsok,sa fdlh Hkh le; ,d ekg dk uksfVl nsdj ;k mlds ,ot esa ,d ekg dk osru rFkk HkRrsa nsdj lekIr dh tk ldsxhA ¼2½ mi;qZDr O;fDr }kjk ,d ekg dk uksfVl fn;s fcuk ;k mlds ,ot esa ,d ekg dk osru rFkk HkRrsa dk Hkqxrku fd;s fcuk lsok NksMus ij ns; jde ml O;fDr ls HkwjktLo dh cdk;k dh Hkkafr olwyh ;ksX; gksxhA ¼3½ dk;Zxgz .k djus ds iwoZ fuEufyf[kr vfHkys[k ewyr% izLrqr djuk gksxk vU;Fkk dk;Zxzg.k lwpuk vekU; dj nh tkosxhA d-½ e/; izns'k 'kklu ds izeq[k fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh ls LokLF; izek.k i= lsok esa fu;qfDr gsrq ekU;A [k-½ mRrh.kZ ijh{kk izek.k&i= ftlesa tUe frfFk vafdr

gksA x-½ pfj= ,oa iwoZor lR;kiu ¼izi= layXu gS½ HkjdjA bl fu;qfDr i= dh izkfIr dh rkfj[k ls ,d ekg ds Hkhrj in xzg.k djuk vfuok;Z gS] vU;Fkk fu;qfDr vkns'k fujLr gks tk;sxkA ;fn fdlh vifjgk;Z dkj.k ls frfFk ds ckn in xzg.k djuk pkgrs gSa rks bl dk;kZy; ls vuqefr bl frfFk ds iwoZ fyf[kr vkosnu nsdj izkIr djuk gksxkA lapkyd okYeh] Hkksiky i`-Ø- @okYeh@0306261 Hkksiky] fnukad 03-06-1997 izfrfyfi%& 1- Jh@Jherh lqUnj flag pkSgku okYeh] HkksikyA 2- ys[kk 'kk[kk] okYeh HkksikyA 3- LFkkiuk 'kk[kk] okYeh HkksikyA lapkyd"

11. Thereafter by order dated 24.03.1999, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, State of Madhya Pradesh directed that there is no provision to make adhoc appointments/promotions in the rules of appointment and therefore, adhoc appointment of petitioner and other persons mentioned in the said order shall be cancelled and accordingly, order dated 01.06.1999 was passed. The Trial Court had decreed the suit on the ground that order dated 01.06.1999 was passed without issuing any notice to petitioner. However, it appears that Trial Court did not give any liberty to respondents. However, 7th Additional District Judge, Bhopal by judgment dated 24.11.2001 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.19A/2001 passed the following order:

";gka ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd vihykFkhZx.k@ oknhx.k dks vxj ;g ekuuk gS fd oknh@izR;FkhZ dh fu;fer fu;qfDr tkss dh xbZ gS og fu;eksa dk ikyu u djrs gq;s ;k fu;e fcuk ds dh xbZ gS] rks bl lac/a k esa og oknh@izR;FkhZ dks lquokbZ dk ekSdk nsdj mfpr ,oa fof/k vuqlkj dk;Zokgh djus ds fy;s Lora= gSA"

12. Even Second Appeal filed by respondents was dismissed on the ground of non-extending the benefit of natural justice before passing an order dated 01.06.1999. Civil Appeal was also dismissed on the ground of non-compliance of principle of natural justice. Therefore, it is clear that liberty granted by 7th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in his judgment dated 24.11.2001 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.19A/2001 was not set aside either by the High Court or the Supreme Court.

13. Under these circumstances, respondents were well within their right to initiate proceedings to consider adhoc appointment of petitioner. Therefore, show cause notice dated 05.10.2010 and 02.11.2010 cannot be quashed. Furthermore, petitioner has been given the status of Sthai Karmi in the light of circular dated 07.10.1996 and petitioner is not aggrieved by said order as order dated 23.06.2018 has not been challenged.

14. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that in view of subsequent events by which petitioner has been assigned the status of Sthai Karmi, no case is made out warranting interference.

15. Petition(s) fails and is/are hereby dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Shanu

Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2023.09.14 16:59:12 +05'30'