Kishore Kumar Kartikey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 14848 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Kishore Kumar Kartikey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2024

Author: Vishal Dhagat

Bench: Vishal Dhagat

                                                              1
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                       WP No. 12622 of 2024
                              (KISHORE KUMAR KARTIKEY AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                           Dated : 17-05-2024
                                 Shri Rohit Sohgaura - Advocate for petitioners.


                                 Petitioners have filed this writ petition under article 226 of constitution of
                           India making following prayers :
                                       (i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the impugned
                                order dated 10.11.2023 (Annexure-P/4) issue by respondent no.2,

Company being illegal, arbitrary and against the settled provisions of law.

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents authorities to grant benefit of appointment on regular posts to the petitioners from their initial date of appointment along with all consequential benefits including arrears of regular pay scale, seniority, increment, etc. from the initial date of appointment.

(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quesh the impugned fresh orders of appointment on contractual basis (Annexure-

P/11 Colly.) issued by respondent no.2, Company and direct the respondent no.2 Company to treat the petitioners to be in continuous employment from their initial date of appointment.

(iv) Any other writ/ order or directions deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case necessary be also passed.

2. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that petitioners cannot be appointed on contract basis in compassionate appointment. He relied on judgment passed by Division Bench in the case of Dharmendra Kumar

Tripathi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & ors. -W.A.No.977/2021 vide order dated 12.07.2021. Counsel for petitioners further relied upon Clause 4, 5 & 6 of Policy of compassionate appointment. Clause 4 of the policy provided that compassionate appointment is to be granted on a regular post and if regular post is not available then on contract post. He submitted that regular posts are available, despite that petitioners are being granted contract appointments. It is further submitted that now respondents are changing the terms of the contract and contact appointment is only to be granted for a period of three years. In view of same, counsel appearing for petitioners made a prayer for protecting the service conditions of petitioners and maintaining of status-quo in the matter till

next date of hearing.

3. Issue notices to respondents on payment of PF within seven days. Notices be made returnable in four weeks.

4. Meanwhile, status quo in respect of service conditions of petitioners be maintained.

5. List this matter after four weeks.

6. Certified copy as per rules.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE

nd