Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through ... vs Ajay Kumar Shukla on 22 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10571
1 WA-1674-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 22nd OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 1674 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Versus
AJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
Appearance:
Shri Bhuwan Gautam - Govt. Advocate for the appellant / State.
Shri Govind Pal Singh Songara - Advocate for the respondent
[CAVEAT].
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others have filed this writ appeal
challenging the order dated 12.04.2024, whereby the Writ Petition No.7758
of 2024 has been allowed by the Writ Court. The petitioner filed a writ
petition challenging the order dated 08.05.2023 passed by Jila Panchayat
Shajapur, whereby he was terminated from the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak
and also the order dated 02.11.2023 passed by Commissioner Ujjain Division
and order dated 01.02.2024 passed by Commissioner, M.P. State
Employment Guarantee Council, whereby both the appeals were dismissed.
02. The Writ Court has allowed the writ petition by placing reliance on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10571
2 WA-1674-2024
a judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.23267 of 2019
(Omprakash Gurjar v/s Panchayat and Rural Development and others), Writ
Petition No.19117 of 2022 (Hukumchand Solanki v/s Panchayat and Rural
Development and others) a n d Writ Petition No.14663 of 2022 (Arvind
Malviya v/s State of M.P. and others) in which in a similar facts and
circumstances the Rojgar Sahayak were directed to be taken back into the
services with 50% backwages. Present writ appeal is filed inter alia on the
ground that the writ petitioner was appointed as Gram Rojgar Sahayak on
contractual basis, therefore, before termination no notice was required to be
issued despite that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, he
submitted a reply and thereafter, the impugned order was passed, thus, proper
opportunity was given to him hence, the writ petitioner was not entitled for
the reinstatement into the service.
03. It is correct that the writ petitioner was given a show cause notice
dated 06.04.2022 leveling 2-3 charges against the writ petitioner. He
submitted a reply denying the charges and gave his explanation but by the
impugned order he has been terminating by simply mentioning that the reply
submitted by the writ petitioner was not found satisfactory. When the charges
were leveled and the reply was given then it was incumbent upon the
authority to examine the reply and passed a reasoned and speaking order.
The order of termination cannot be passed by mentioning that the reply is not
satisfactory. Likewise, both the Appellate Authority have also not considered
the reply and simply upheld the order passed by the Collector and District
Programme Coordinator, MGNREGA.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10571
3 WA-1674-2024
04. The writ petitioner was appointed in the year 2012, he rendered
more than 11 years of service. Every year the contractual appointment was
extended and now the Gram Rojgar Sahayak have been declared as Deputy
Secretary also. The petitioner alongwith other Gram Rojgar Sahayak were
demanding for regularization on the post of Deputy Secretary, therefore, they
went on a strike.
05. Learned Govt. Advocate for the appellant / State fairly admits that
in the cases of Omprakash Gurjar (supra), Hukumchand Solanki (supra)
and Arvind Malviya (supra), no writ appeal was filed before this Court and
the order has been complied with by reinstating them into the service with
50% backwages, therefore, the writ petitioner cannot be discriminated by the
respondent therein.
06. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with
the impugned orders. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Divyansh
