Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Manoj Kumar Chansoriya on 17 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7518
1 WA-141-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 17th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 141 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
MANOJ KUMAR CHANSORIYA
Appearance:
Shri Anubhav Jain- Govt. Advocate for the appellants / State.
Shri Manoj Kumar Chansoriya - Advocate for the respondent.
JUDGMENT
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Chief Justice
Heard on IA No.692/2025, an application for condonation of delay of
90 days in filing this appeal.
2. Upon perusal of the averments made therein, the same is allowed
and delay is condoned.
3. Heard on admission.
4. The present appeal is filed on the ground that after the notification
issued by the Govt. of Madhya Pradesh in consonance of policy dated
16.05.2007, the committee was constituted by the General Administration
Department (G.A.D.), wherein the committee was headed by the Divisional
Commissioner along with the District Collector, C.E.O., C.M.H.O. and one
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7518
2 WA-141-2025
person who was nominated officer of SC/ST.
5. The counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants / State submits
that the writ petitioner who is claiming regularization on the post in question,
has also not very specifically been scrutinized by the said committee and on
the contrary the petitioner was merely proposed or so called allowed to work
on the said post merely on the direction/proposal given by the C.M.H.O.
which must be actually proposed by the Commissioner Health Services and
the committee.
6. It is further submitted that as per the gazette notification dated
08.02.2008 passed by the G.A.D. Bhopal in notification No. 05-03/06/1-3 it
is clearly mentioned in the table point 1 of Paramarsh Bindu (advisory notes)
that, all those appointments that have not been carried out after going
through the scrutiny process and also who have not been appointed after
following the due process of law which is to be carried out by the committee
constituted under the Chairmanship of Divisional Commissioner shall be
considered as an illegal appointment and also it would be called as an
unlawful appointment.
7. In the writ petition the petitioner claimed the benefit of policy
dated 07.10.2016 (Annexure P-26) issued by the State Government in respect
of daily wagers who could not be regularized for certain reasons, but have
rendered service of more than 10 years. This policy does not provide for
regularization but only provides of conferment of limited status of skilled,
semi-skilled and unskilled worker and grant of salary higher than a daily
rated employee. Therefore, reliance on circular dated 16.05.2007 and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7518
3 WA-141-2025
08.02.2008 seems to be utterly misplaced because these circulars relate to
regularization whereas the present case is that of grant of benefit of policy
dated 07.10.2016.In the year 2012, the petitioner was appointed as a daily
wager on the post of Computer Operator in the respondent/Department and
in the year 2015 the appellants herein terminated the services of the
petitioner which was assailed before the Labour Court and in turn, the
Labour Court holding the petitioner's termination illegal had directed for his
reinstatement in the service and pursuant thereto, though the petitioner got
reinstated in service, but the appellants had assailed the order passed by
the Labour Court by filing a writ petition No. 15184 of 2018 which lateron,
got withdrawn vide order dated 14.01.2020 and since then, being a daily
wager, the petitioner was continued in service. Thereafter, the appellants|
denying the claim of the petitioner for granting the benefit of Policy dated
07.10.2016 had passed the impugned order dated 25.10.2023 (Annexure-
P/31) mainly on the ground that as per the conditions contained in the said
Policy, the petitioner does not fall within the category of daily wagers who
could be granted the said benefit.
8. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that as
per the order dated 25.10.2023 (Annexure P/31) the petitioner was neither in
service on 16.05.2007 nor he was continued up to 01.09.2016 which was the
requirement for a daily wager to be granted the benefit of policy dated
07.10.2016 and as such, his claim has been rejected by the appellants.
However, in the impugned order, it is also mentioned that since the
appointment of the petitioner was made by an incompetent authority that too
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7518
4 WA-141-2025
without obtaining prior approval for the State Government, therefore, the
writ petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of policy dated 07.10.2016.
9. It is also important to note Clause 1.8 of the policy dated
07.10.2016 which is reproduced as under:
'1.8 ऐसे दै िनक वेतन भोगी जो दनांक 16 मई, 2007 को कायरत थे व दनांक 01
िसत बर, 2016 को भी कायरत है , इस वेतन म एवं अ य लाभ के िलए पा ह ग।
दनांक 16 मई 2007 के प ात शासन क अनुमित/अनुमोदन उपरा त स म
अिधकार ारा दै िनक वेतन भोगी के पद पर िनयु कये गये ह उ ह भी योजना क
पा ता होगी। दनांक 01 िसत बर 2016 के पूव सेवािनवृ / सेवा से पृथक कये गये
अथवा सेवा छोड चुके दै िनक वेतन भोिगय को इस योजना क पा ता नह ं होगी।
सं वदा, अंशकालीन एवं आउट सोिसग के मा यम से िनयु कमचा रय के िलए यह
योजना लागू नह ं है ।'
10. The learned writ Court observed that the said Clause is in two
parts whereunder in the first part it is mentioned that the daily wagers who
were there in the employment on 16.05.2007 and were continued up to
01.09.2016 are entitled to get the benefit of the Policy whereas in second
part, it is mentioned that the daily wagers who were appointed even after
16.05.2007 with the permission of competent authority or with the approval
of the State Government, are also entitled to get the benefit of policy.
11. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was appointed in the
year 2012 as a daily wager and continued up to now and even in between in
the year 2015 he was dismissed from service, but his dismissal was set aside
by the Labour Court and that order has attained finality and in pursuance to
that order the petitioner got reinstated in service. That apart in pursuance to
the order passed by the writ Court when two committees were constituted to
consider the claim of the petitioner for granting him the benefit of policy
dated 07.10.2006 wherein the first committee consisting of Chief Municipal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7518
5 WA-141-2025
and Health Officer, Tikamgarh had submitted its report in favour of the
petitioner observing therein that the appointment of the petitioner was made
after following legal procedure whereas the second committing consisting of
seven members had recommended in favour of the petitioner saying that he
may be granted the benefit of policy dated 07.10.2016, then there was no
reason with the appellant for not accepting the recommendations of those
committees. Dealing with the similar circumstances the Supreme Court in the
case of State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. M.L. Kesari reported in (2010) 9
SCC 247 has observed as under:-
"7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the
general principles against "regularisation" enunciated in Umadevi
(3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , if the following conditions are fulfilled:
(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or
more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of
the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State
Government or its instrumentality should have employed the
employee and continued him in service voluntarily and
continuously for more than ten years.
(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even
if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued
against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not
possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments
will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed
possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against
sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the
process of open competitive selection, such appointments are
considered to be irregular."
12. Accordingly, the writ Court observed that on mere technicalities
that the petitioner was neither appointed by a competent authority nor any
approval was taken from the State Government at the time of his
appointment as a daily wager will not debar him when the petitioner has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7518
6 WA-141-2025
completed more than ten years of successful service in the department. Not
only this, but when the counsel for appellant/State was confronted with the
query that who, if not CHMO, is the competent authority for Data Entry
Operator or clerk in regular post, he was unable to give any answer.
13. In view of the above, we find no illegality or perversity in the
order passed by the writ Court. Finding no merits in the present appeal, the
same is hereby dismissed.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) (VIVEK JAIN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
nks
