Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Kuamr Bichail vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 January, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1 WP-4705-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WP No. 4705 of 2023
(ASHOK KUAMR BICHAIL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 20-01-2025
Shri Piyush Bhatnagar - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly - Deputy Advocate General for
respondent/State.
The matter is regarding regularization of an employee who has worked
in the department since 1985. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance upon the recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Vinod Kumar and others v. Union of India and others: (2024) 9
SCC 327 as well as in the case of Jaggo v. Union of India and others :
SLP(C) No.5580/2024 which was decided on 20.12.2024.
In an identical connected matter this Court vide order dated
10.01.2025. has granted time to the Deputy Advocate General to seek
instructions in the matter with respect to regularization of the petitioner
based upon the aforesaid judgments.
The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of State
has pointed out that there is a judgment passed by the Constitutional Bench
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v.
Umadevi reported in 2006(4) SCC 1 which was further considered in the
case of State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari : 2010 (9) SCC 247 wherein the
judgment passed in the case of Umadevi was taken note of and it was
clarified that such practices should not be continue in future. It should be
2 WP-4705-2023
considered as a one time measure considering the services rendered by the
daily rated employees for a period of 10 years.
The said judgments have not been taken note of in the aforesaid cases
by the two Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further pointed out that
all these judgments are being sent for consideration to the GAD department
and till date there is no opinion from the GAD department pertaining to the
same.
Under these circumstances, learned Deputy Advocate General seeks
for a short time to enable him to seek response from the GAD department
with respect to the compliance of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar (supra) and Jaggo (supra).
Counsel appearing for the petitioner has objected to the aforesaid
pointing out the fact that in series of judgments passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court directions have been given for regularization of the
employees. The judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Uma Devi (supra) has been taken note of in the case of Vinod Kumar
(supra) and Jaggo (supra).
Be as it may. After going through the judgments passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court this Court deems it appropriate to grant two weeks time to the
State counsel to enable him to procure affidavit of the Principle Secretary of
the GAD department pointing out the fact that whether they are in a position
to comply with the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Vinod Kumar (supra) and Jaggo (supra) or if not then what is the
clarification given by them for not complying such orders. Considering the
3 WP-4705-2023
fact that the employees who have worked in the department for more than
two decades without any interference by the Court whether they are entitled
for regularization or not. The affidavit should further clarify the fact that the
policy framed by the government dated 07.10.2016 which is applicable to the
daily rated employees, whether the benefit of such policy has to be extended
to the employees like the petitioner or not. Let there be a further clarification
to the aspect that whether to a classified employee the benefit of policy dated
07.10.2016 is to be extended to him or not because the policy dated
07.10.2016 is only with respect to daily rated employees.
List the matter in week commencing 10.02.2025.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
L.Raj
