Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandra Prakash Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 April, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8818
1 WA-1027-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 22nd OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 1027 of 2025
CHANDRA PRAKASH GUPTA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sudhir Chatruvedi- learned counsel for appellant.
Shri Ankur Mody- learned Additional Advocate General for respondents-State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
The present appeal under Section 2 (1)7 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred by the
appellant being crestfallen by the order dated 08/01/2025 passed by learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No.64 of 2025 whereby the writ petition filed by the
appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as
daily wager on the post of Pump Attendant on 01/03/1987. On 09/01/1990,
guidelines were issued for regularization of daily wage employees. According to
which regularization had to be carried out within a period of three months. Since,
process of regularization was not started, therefore, petitioner approached the
State Tribunal at Gwalior by filing OA No. 1533/1999.
3. Meandering through different litigations, petitioner ultimately
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8818
2 WA-1027-2025
succeeded in Division Bench by which WP No. 4486/2003 was decided vide
order dated 13/05/2004 with direction to respondents to consider the case of
regularization of petitioner, as per the directions issued by Division Bench in the
case of M.P. Vs Madan Lal Pandey and another decided on 25/03/2004 in WP
No. 1387/1999.
4. Since then, nothing happened then Contempt Petition was filed.
However, different milestones in the service jurisprudence witnessed by way of
judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and thereafter Ram Naresh Rawat
Vs. Ashwini Ray reported in 2017 (Vol 3) SCC 436 . These are important events
in service prospect of daily wage employee.
5. Petitioner again filed petition seeking regularization because earlier his
writ petition was allowed and on the basis of writ petition, Chief Engineer,
Chambal Betawa Project Bhopal vide letter dated 11/07/2005 informed petitioner
that his entry in the gradation list is 363 and because of paucity of posts, he could
not be regularized at that stage. However, moment any vacancy falls, petitioner
was assured to be regularized. Said document is annexed as Annexure P-5 with
the writ petition. Still, nothing happened, therefore, petitioner filed writ petition
which got dismissed by learned Writ Court. Therefore, appellant/petitioner is
before the Court.
6. It is submission of learned counsel for appellant that learned writ
Court erred in passing the impugned order and proceeded on the assumption that
appellant is daily wage employee and he can not be regularized in the wake of
judgment of Apex Court in the case of Umadevi (Supra) and Ramnaresh Rawat
(Supra). However, petitioner is entitled to get regularization because in his
Department many other similarly placed employees have been regularized.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8818
3 WA-1027-2025
Therefore, he deserves to be considered for regularization. He referred the
judgment of Apex Court in the cases of SLP No. 5580/2024 Jaggo Vs Union of
India and others, and SLP No. 11086/2024 Anita & Ors Vs Union of India and
others decided on 20/12/2024. According to him, said judgments cover all aspects
and direct for regularization of employee.
7. Learned counsel for respondents-State opposed the prayer and supported
the impugned order. However, he fairly submits that respondent shall consider the
case of petitioner in accordance with law, if situation warrants so.
8. Considering the rival submissions and looking to the fact situation
whereby way back in 2005 (Annexure P-5 of writ petition), Chief Engineer vide
letter dated 11/07/2005 assured the petitioner to consider his case for
regularization, once his turn comes as per gradation list and if other similarly
situated employees are given benefit of regularization then case of petitioner can
also be considered in the light of those orders. Therefore, it is the solemn duty of
respondents to consider the case of petitioner on its own merits for regularization
and if petitioner is found suitable then consequential followup action be ensured.
Else, representation be decided by passing a reasoned order. Since, much water
has flown for last more than two decades, therefore, it is expected that
respondents shall consider the case of petitioner/appellant at an expeditious note
preferably with a period of two months from the date of submission of certified
copy of this order.
9. In view of above, the impugned order dated 08/01/2025 passed by
learned Writ Court in WP No. 64/2025 stands modified and liberty is granted to
the appellant in aforesaid terms.
10. Accordingly, Writ Appeal stands disposed of.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8818
4 WA-1027-2025
10. It is made clear that respondents shall pass the order on its own
merits without being influenced by any observation passed by Writ Court or by
this Court.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Prachi
