Sunil Burman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 3342 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sunil Burman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2024

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                          1                     R.P.No.1368/2023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
            AT JABALPUR
                         BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
              ON THE 5th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
             REVIEW PETITION No. 1368 of 2023

BETWEEN:-

SUNIL BURMAN S/O SHRI RAMESHWAR
BURMAN     OCCUPATION:    DAILY  WAGE
EMPLOYEE IN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KEYMORE,
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                              .....PETITIONER

(BY SHRI PRAKASH UPADHYAY - ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER)

AND

1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
      THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
      DEPARTMENT        OF      URBAN
      ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT
      MANTRALAYA     VALLABH  BHAWAN
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)


2.    COMMISSIONER              (REVENUE)
      COMMISSIONER      COURT     CAMPUS
      JABALPUR DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
      PRADESH)


3.    COLLECTOR    COLLECTORATE    KATNI
      DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)


4.    CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER MUNICIPAL
      COUNCIL KAYMORE DISTRICT KATNI
      (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                            .....RESPONDENTS
                                2                        R.P.No.1368/2023


(BY SHRI SWAPNIL GANGULI - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
RESPONDENTS/STATE)

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

This application under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC has been filed against the order dated 29.09.2023 in W.P.No.13962/2017.

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that initial appointment of the petitioner was never under challenge and therefore the rejection of writ petition in the light of observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and Others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 was de hors the pleadings.

3. Considered the submissions made by counsel for petitioner.

4. A person who has been appointed on daily wages is required to prima facie show that his initial appointment was not illegal and it was irregular. Unless and until such a basic foundation is laid down, this Court cannot ignore the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) only on the ground that there is no such pleading in the writ petition and or in the return. Furthermore, in the light of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247, the cut off date in the light of judgment passed in the case of Umadevi (supra) is 10.04.2006.

5. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner had completed 10 years as a daily wager on cut of date i.e. 10.04.2006. It

was for the petitioner to establish that his initial appointment was not illegal but it was irregular. If there was no pleading on the part of the petitioner, then he has to face the adverse consequences and this Court cannot ignore the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra).

6. It is further submitted by counsel for petitioner that initially the Municipal Council had passed a resolution for regularization of services of petitioner, which was subsequently withdrawn and the Municipal Council has no jurisdiction to withdraw its own resolution after the matter was remanded back by the High Court.

7. Considered the submissions of the counsel for petitioner.

8. This Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot compel a respondent to comply its own order, which is not in accordance with law.

9. The Municipal Council never considered the nature of initial appointment of petitioner. If the Municipal Council had decided to regularize the services of the petitioner in contravention of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra), then this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot uphold such decision of the Municipal Council. If an order, which was passed in ignorance of law laid down by Umadevi (supra) was withdrawn by Municipal Council, then it cannot be said that such withdrawal was without jurisdiction.

10. As no error apparent on face of record could be pointed out by counsel for petitioner.

11. Accordingly, the review petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE VB* VINAY KUMAR BURMAN 2024.02.07 17:16:01 +05'30'