Madhya Pradesh High Court
Praveen Kumar Vyas vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40153
1 WP-24497-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 22nd OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 24497 of 2022
PRAVEEN KUMAR VYAS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shivendra Pandey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri V.P. Tiwari - Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
ORDER
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that identically situated
employees had filed W.P. No.17275 of 2022 and the said petition is already
been allowed by this Court for those who belonged to the same department
i.e. under Consumer Forums. The petitioner is similarly situated and deserves
similar treatment.
2. The coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 17275/2022 has
passed the following order:-
"Pleadings are complete.
2. Considering the issue involved, the matter is heard finally.
3. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :-
"(i) Petitioner is praying for quashing of the rejection representation dated
11.04.2022 (Annexure P/8).
(ii) To direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in
accordance with the direction issued by the circulars of the respondents-State.
(iii) To direct the respondents to regularize services of the petitioners from the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40153
2 WP-24497-2022
date of appointment and pleased to maintain the seniority of the petitioners for
all purposes.
(iv) To grant consequential benefit to the petitioners.
(v) To call for record relating to appointment of the petitioners.
(vi) To grant any other consequential relief as well as other relief this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
including cost of the litigation in favour of the petitioner.
(vii) Cost of the petition is also awarded."
4. As per the facts of the case, the petitioners were appointed as Watchman
on daily wages basis (Collector rate) and have been working in the respondent
Nos.3 to 6-Forum. They have rendered their services continuously since last
10-15 years and their dates of appointment are shown in a chart prepared in
para-5.1 of the petition, which is reproduced as under :-
Petitioners S. Nos. Date of appointment as Watchman Date of Collector rate
01. 15.07.2003 24.10.2011
02. 01.11.2006 01.01.2016
03. 06.06.2008 03.11.2011
04. 01.11.2006 03.11.2011
05. 06.12.2003 24.10.2011
06. 30.08.2003 24.10.2011
07. 06.01.2004 30.11.2016
08. 10.06.2003 24.10.2011
5. The respondents have issued certain circulars on different dates i.e.
23.02.2008, 06.09.2008, 27.09.2008, 04.04.2008 and 07.10.2016 with regard to
regularizing the services of daily wagers appointed against the sanctioned post
which is available on record as Annexure P/3. It is provided in the said
circulars that so far as Class IV employees are concerned, there shall be no
boundation of minimum academic qualification. It is also provided that
whosoever has completed 10 years and 20 years of service, shall be paid
Rs.500/- and 1000/- respectively as a special allowance and that would be paid
from 01.09.2008.
6. It is mentioned in the petition that some of the employees appointed as
daily wagers on the post equivalent to that of petitioners have been regularized
but the claim of the petitioners has not been considered, therefore,
representations were made by the petitioners claiming regularization in the
light of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary,
State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi and others AIR 2006 SC 1806 .
There were several cases decided by the High Court directing regularization in
the light of Uma Devi (supra) but petitioners' case was not considered and
therefore they filed a writ petition before this Court i.e. W.P. No.3472/2022
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40153
3 WP-24497-2022
which got disposed of vide order dated 14.02.2022. Thereafter, the
respondents pursuant to the said order, rejected the representation of the
petitioners vide order dated 11.04.2022 (Annexure P/8) saying that except five,
all have been granted status of permanent employee as per the policy of the
State Government dated 07.10.2016 and therefore, the order of regularization
cannot be passed in their favour. However, according to the petitioners, before
the order dated 11.04.2022 (Annexure P/8), another order dated 10.12.2015
had been passed by the respondents regularizing some employees working in
the respondent/department who were similarly situated with the petitioners.
7. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 have filed their reply taking stand therein that they
are in dire need of regular employees. In absence of those regular employees,
despite availability of sanctioned posts, the work of the forums are being
hampered and they are not in a position to perform their duties freely and
smoothly. They have also taken stand in their reply that vide letter dated
30.11.2016, State Government was requested to classify the employees as
permanent employees who have been working since last five years and they
have also been asking the State Government repeatedly to sanction regular pay
scale to the employees who have been performing their duties as daily wagers
since long.
8. As per the reply submitted by respondent Nos.2 to 6, it is clear that they
are in need of services of the daily wagers and repeatedly they have been
requesting the State Government to sanction additional posts in different
categories of employees so that the petitioners may be regularized because due
to lack of sanctioned posts, the working of the forums are being hampered and
they are not in a position to carry out their work smoothly.
9. The State Government has supported the stand taken by respondent Nos.2
to 6 meaning thereby they have not disputed the stand taken by respondent
Nos.2 to 6 but on the contrary they have also approved the stand of respondent
Nos.2 to 6. Thus, in my opinion, the claim of the petitioners for regularizing
their services can be considered because it is a fit case wherein though the
forums have been established by State Government but they are not providing
them proper infrastructure and despite requirement of services of the
employees like petitioners, they are not creating and sanctioning the posts so as
to regularize them. They are also not providing regular pay scale of the posts
on which employees have been performing their duties. The Supreme Court in
the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & others - SLP (C) No.5580/2024 and
Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad - Civil Appeal No.
8157/2024 taking note of this situation, has also opined that if the employees
are working since long and there is a requirement of work then they can be
regularized. This Court also in the case of Ravi Shankar Tripathi vs. The State
of Madhya Pradesh and others (W.P. No.335 of 2013) relying upon the
aforesaid judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Jaggo
(supra) and Shripal (supra) observed as under :-
"17. In re Jaggo (supra), the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced and the
material on record, we find that the appellants' long and uninterrupted service,
for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40153
4 WP-24497-2022
by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence
of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained
contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence
suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route.
11. The appellants, throughout their tenure, were engaged in performing
essential duties that were indispensable to the day-to-day functioning of the
offices of the Central Water Commission (CWC). Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3,
as Safaiwalis, were responsible for maintaining hygiene, cleanliness, and a
conducive working environment within the office premises. Their duties
involved sweeping, dusting, and cleaning of floors, workstations, and common
areas--a set of responsibilities that directly contributed to the basic operational
functionality of the CWC. Applicant No. 5, in the role of a Khallasi (with
additional functions akin to those of a Mali), was entrusted with critical
maintenance tasks, including gardening, upkeep of outdoor premises, and
ensuring orderly surroundings.
12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants performed
these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods,
ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not
sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to
the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the
respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the
appellants' tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.
13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks
merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and
fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these
duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their
initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent
outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants'
termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of
outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another,
further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor
occasional.
19. It is evident from the foregoing that the appellants' roles were not only
essential but also indistinguishable from those of regular employees. Their
sustained contributions over extended periods, coupled with absence of any
adverse record, warrant equitable treatment and regularization of their services.
Denial of this benefit, followed by their arbitrary termination, amounts to
manifest injustice and must be rectified.
22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as
exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects
workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig
economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often
characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such
practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour
standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of
fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such
exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in
misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40153
5 WP-24497-2022
observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can
erode public trust in governmental operations."
18. Further, in re Shripal (supra), the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend
that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in
the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as
frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that
are "illegal" and those that are "irregular", the latter being eligible for
regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma
Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for
years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the
record which shows no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent
need for permanent horticulatural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh
recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or
continued unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their
services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if
certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish
such records-despite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under
well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavours
perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the
work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing
municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as
dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At
this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite
"temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this Court
in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs:
"22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified
in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers'
rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led
to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by
lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been
criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards.
Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness
and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative
employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of
temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the
gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in
governmental operations.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in
government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While
the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address
short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to
evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40153
6 WP-24497-2022
several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is
essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often
labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of
regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity,
security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing
identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed
without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines
the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant
insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves
excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental
pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity
between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being
equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing
roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of
exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation
but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer
regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied
fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and
paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security
subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of
illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."
10. When request for creating additional posts has been made by the
respondent Nos.2 to 6 and State has not shown any incapacity to fulfill the said
request made by the respondents, then in such circumstances, this Court is of
the opinion that the services of the petitioners be regularized by creating
additional posts or alternatively, they may be granted regular pay scale on the
posts on which they have been performing their duties. Since, it is also
informed during the course of arguments that the respondents have issued an
advertisement inviting applications for regular appointment on the posts on
which petitioners have been performing their duties, in my opinion, no fresh
appointment can be made unless these petitioners are first regularized and
thereafter if the posts remain vacant then only fresh recruitment can be made.
11. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is allowed. Ex.
consequential, the impugned order dated 11.04.2022 (Annexure P/8) is hereby
set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to make arrangements and provide
benefits to the petitioners within a period of three months from today."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40153
7 WP-24497-2022
3. The petitioner being similarly situated, the said order will apply
to the petitioner also mutatis mutandis with full force and time lines as
contained in the said order, will apply to the petitioner also. The impugned
order (Annexure P-6) is set aside.
4. With the aforesaid petition is disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
nks
