Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 April, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17143
1 WP-11868-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 8 th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 11868 of 2025
ANIL CHOUDHARY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Balkishan Choudhary - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A.S. Baghel - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs -
"(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
concern Respondents to regularize the services of the
petitioner from the date of his initial appointment on February
1, 1995, in accordance with the relevant laws and the
directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka
vs. Uma Devi (2006).
(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
concern Respondents to implement the orders passed by the
Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.
1162/2000 and provide all applicable benefits, including pay
scale, seniority, and other entitlements, in a timely manner.
And may further be pleased that the circular dated 07.10.2016
issued by the department be cancelled, in a manner similar to
the order passed in the case dated 14.05.2018.
(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the
impugned order dated 14.05.2018 passed by the Respondent
No.4 vide Annexure P/5.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17143
2 WP-11868-2025
(iv) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this
Hon'bleCourt deems fit."
It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that the order
impugned dated 14.05.2018 has wrongly been passed by the employees. The
petitioner is working in the respondent/department since 1995. He has an
unblemished service career of almost 30 years, but despite of the same the
authorities has not considered the case of the petitioner for regularization.
Instead, they have passed an order dated 14.05.2018 extending the benefit of
policy dated 07.10.2016 to the petitioner and he has been extended the
benefit of semi skilled permanent employee.
This order is put to challenge in pursuance to the directions given by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo v. Union of India and others
: SLP (C) No.5580 of 2024 decided on 20.12.2024. It is argued that the
judgment passed by the Constitutional bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and
others : (2006) 4 SCC 1 has also been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the aforesaid case. Therefore, instead of granting permanent status
to the petitioner and extending him the benefit of semi skilled employee, the
regularization of the petitioner should have been ordered.
Counsel appearing for the State has raised an objection that the
impugned order was passed on 14.05.2018 and the petitioner has happily and
with wide open eyes accepted the same. There was no challenge to the said
order at any point of time. He has further pointed out that at the time of
extending said benefit of Viniyamitikaram Scheme dated 07.10.2016 the
consent from the petitioner was also taken. Therefore, he is debarred from
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17143
3 WP-11868-2025
challenging the said order passed by the authorities. He is already enjoying
the said benefit extended to him on 14.05.2018 till date. There is no
explanation in paragraph 4 of the writ petition for delay in approaching the
Court. Under these circumstances no relief can be extended to the petitioner.
He has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
The sole question which came for consideration before this Court is
whether the order dated 14.05.2018 is bad in law and whether the petitioner
is entitled for regularization in service.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner is working in the respondent-
department since last 30 years. The State Government has considered the
case of the petitioner granting the permanent status to him and extending the
benefit of policy dated 07.10.2016 and he has been granted the permanent
status of semi-skilled labour and the pay scale of the said post has been
extended to him. Vide order dated 14.05.2018, the petitioner has accepted
the same and is working as a semi-skilled employee in the respondent-
department since 2018. There was no challenge to the said order at any point
of time. After waiting for seven years, the petitioner has now filed this
petition seeking regularization. The judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) was considered by the State
Government and to extend the benefit to the daily rated employees, the
policy dated 07.10.2016 was formulated by the government and the benefits
have accordingly been extended to the daily rated employees like petitioner.
The petitioner has already been extended the said benefit. Once the petitioner
has happily accepted the benefit seven years back, now he cannot take a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17143
4 WP-11868-2025
somersault and challenge the order by saying it to be an incorrect order
passed by the authorities. Under these circumstances, no relief can be
extended to the petitioner.
Petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
L.Raj
