Madhya Pradesh High Court
Om Prakash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3359
1 WA-378-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 17th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 378 of 2025
OM PRAKASH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Sharma- Advocate for appellants.
Shri Ankur Mody- Additional Advocate General for respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
1. The present appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh
(Uchcha Nyayalay Ki Khand Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is
preferred by the appellants against the impugned order dated 20.01.2025
passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1676/2025 whereby
the writ petition preferred by the appellants got dismissed.
2. It is the submission of learned counsel for appellants that
learned Writ Court erred in passing the impugned order and held that
appellants are not entitled for regularisation in the light of the judgment
of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Secretary, State of
Karanataka and others Vs. Uma Devi and other, (2006) 4 SCC 1. It is
further submitted that appellants are classified as permanent and,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3359
2 WA-378-2025
therefore, they are entitled to get benefit as per circular dated 07.10.2016
(Annexure-A). Counsel for appellants refers the judgment dated
20.12.2024 passed by Apex Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of
India and Others reported in 2024 SCC Online [SC 3826 (SLP(C)
No.5580 of 2024] and submits that Supreme Court has held that benefit
to the employee, who has provided long service and doing perennial
nature of work, can be considered for regularisation. If appellants are
found suitable for regularisation, then respondents may consider their
candidature accordingly.
3. Counsel for respondent/State refers the circular dated
07.10.2016 and its appendix as Annexure-A and submits that if appellant
is found suitable for regularisation, then respondents shall consider in
accordance with law and the relevant policy including circular dated
07.10.2016.
4. Heard.
5. This is a case where appellants, who were classified as
permanent, seeking regularisation. Counsel for respondents has referred
circular dated 07.10.2016 and its appendix to bring home to the analogy
that due procedure shall be followed for regularisation as per circular
and policy of the State Government.
6. The Apex Court in the case of Jaggu (supra) as discussed the
issue in question in following manner:-
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice
of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3359
3 WA-378-2025
principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or
misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This
judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular"
appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular
appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served
continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for
regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the
judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to
indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their
appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural
formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma
Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for
temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit
acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This
selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively
weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable
services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for
government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable
employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods,
especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning,
not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the
organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By
ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the
burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the
principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This
approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent
for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall
betterment of labour practices in the country.
28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are
allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the
Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the
following extent:
i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed;
ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their
services regularised forthwith. However, the appellants shall not be
entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they
have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services
for the said period and the same would be counted for their post-
retiral benefits.
7. When appellants are seeking regularisation and if the
respondents intend to undertake drive in near future or when if it is
apposite for them to proceed, then they can certainly proceed for
consideration of the case of appellants in accordance with law.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3359
4 WA-378-2025
8. It is made clear that observations made by learned Writ Court in
the impugned order would not come in the way of appellants for
regularisation if otherwise, they are found fit and eligible for the same.
9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the case and the case of appellants shall be considered on
its own merits.
10. Needless to say that it shall be considered by respondents at an
expeditious note.
Writ appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
*AVI*
