Madhya Pradesh High Court
Om Prakash Singh Parihar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 May, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 21 st OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 10840 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
OM PRAKASH SINGH PARIHAR S/O SHRI VIDUR SINGH
PARIHAR, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETD. DAK RUNNER WRD BAN SAGAR PURVA NAHAR
NO.02, SATNA R/O KATKOND KHURD POST VASUDHA
NAGOD DIST. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN VERMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE
DEPARTMENT DISTT. REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE
D EPARTM EN T BAN SAGAR KOTAR DISTT.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. TREASURY OFFICER S A T N A DISTT. SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking a direction to the authorities to decide
petitioner's representation Annx.P/5, in the light of the judgment of Supreme
Court in Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [Civil appeal No.6798 of
2019 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.4371 of 2011] and other connected
matters, decided on 02.09.2019, on the ground that facts of the said case have
direct application to the facts of the present case.
2. Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner is in agreement that
petitioner was appointed as a daily wager. He is also in agreement that
petitioner was classified as a permanent employee, but was never regularised.
3. In view of such facts, when the decision of Supreme Court in Prem Singh
(supra) is taken into consideration, then in para 35, it is held by the Supreme
Court as under :-
"35. There are some of the employees who have not been
regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40
or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they
have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against
any particular project, their services ought to have been
regularized under the Government instructions and even as per
the decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka &
Ors. V. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1. This Court in the said
decision has laid down that in case services have been
rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the
Court's order, as one time measure, the services be regularized
of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees
who have worked for ten years or more should have been
regularized. it would not be proper to regulate them for
consideration of regularisation as others have been
regularised, we direct that their services be treated as a regular
one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to
claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been
continued in service regularly before attaining the age of
superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension
as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the
services rendered by them right from the day they entered the
work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying
service for purpose of pension".
4. Vide Annx.P/2, it reveals that the petitioner was working as a daily wager
and not as a work-charged employee. Therefore, decision of Supreme Court in
Prem Singh (supra), is not a binding precedent for this High Court, inasmuch
as, order having been passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, cannot be exercised by the High Court. Moreover,
petitioner is not a work-charged employee.
5. Thirdly, the ratio of law in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and
others Vs. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1], is to consider the case of employees
by classifying them as irregular and illegal appointments and thereafter,
constituting a screening committee and that screening committee has to take a
decision. Petitioner while in service, never approached the High Court for
fulfillment of aforesaid requirements.
6. In view of such facts, this Court has no authority to directly declare like the
Supreme Court that petitioner be deemed to be regularised from the date of his
initial appointment and that authority being not vested in the High Court in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court
cannot extend the benefit as has been given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
of Prem Singh (supra).
7. Accordingly, petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
A.Praj.
