Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajit Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 January, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1973
1 WP-19180-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 29th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 19180 of 2019
AJIT SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Kumar Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Yashika
Nayak appeared for petitioner.
Shri B.M. Patel - Government Advocate for respondent No.1/State.
Shri S.P. Jain - Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.
ORDER
Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:
(a) That, a Writ of Mandamus, Certiorari or any other appropriate
Writ, Order or Direction may kindly be issued directing the
respondent No.3 Managing Director of the respondent No.2 Board
to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of status/grade of
"Sthai Karmi" from the date as per his entitlement in terms of the
directives contained in the circular No.F.5-1/2013/3 dated 07
October, 2016 (Annexure P/1) issued by the GAD, which, in turn,
is followed and adopted by the respondent No.2 Board also vide
its order 14.06.2017 as referred to in its order dated 23.12.2017
(Annexure P/2) itself and after considering the claim of the
petitioner in accordance therewith, go grant to the petitioner the
status/grade of "Sthai Karmi" from due date as per his entitlement
in terms of the directives contained in the said circular dated 27
October, 2016 (Annexure P/1) followed and adopted by the
respondent No.2 Board vide its aforesaid order dated 14.06.2017.
(b) In alternative, the petitioner prays for a further direction to the
respondent No.3 Managing Director to consider the representation
of the petitioner dated 09.04.2018 (Annexure P/3) followed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1973
2 WP-19180-2019
reminder letter dated 03.06.2019 (Annexure P/4) keeping in view
the facts and figures mentioned therein and after such
consideration, to decide the same in accordance with law by a
reasoned and speaking order within a reasonable period (i.e. within
a period of one month).
(c) Any other such orders or directions which the Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case, be also passed along with the costs of the writ petition.
"(aa). That, the impugned order/communication dated 10.08.2018
(Annexure P/7) to the writ petition and Annexure R/1 to the
Reply) issued by the Assistant Director (Karmik), M.P. State
Agricultural Marketing Board, MP Bhopal on the approval of
Additional Director, may kindly be quashed."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed
on the post of Lower Division Clerk on daily basis on 24.6.1996 in Krishi
Upaj Mandi Samiti, Ambah, District Morena. As per Government policy, the
services of the petitioner was terminated w.e.f. 19.1.2000. Petitioner raised
industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court
No.2, Gwalior wherein ultimately award dated 2.6.2007 was passed by the
Labour Court whereby it was directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- in
lieu of relief of reinstatement. Thereafter, petitioner preferred a
W.P.No.8496/2011 before this Court and vide order dated 24.4.2017 this
Court has modified the award passed by the Labour Court and relief of
reinstatement has been ordered. In compliance of the order passed by this
Court petitioner was reinstated in service as a daily rated Lower Division
Clerk on 18.10.2017 by respondent No.4. The order of reinstatement would
be deemed to be continue the petitioner in service. Petitioner being fulfilling
all the conditions and requirement as per the circular dated 7.10.2016
(Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.2 is entitled to be granted the grade
of Sthai Karmi but respondents No.2 to 4 are not considering the claim of the
petitioner for grant of Sthai Karmi. Similarly situated other employee was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1973
3 WP-19180-2019
given the same benefit. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner has
preferred this writ petition.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer
and prayed for its rejection by submitting in their reply that petitioner is
presently working as daily rated Lower Division Clerk. Representation made
by the petitioner on 9.4.2018 (Annexure P/3) for grant of status of grade of
Sthai Karmi has been duly considered by the competent authority in the light
of circular dated 7.10.2016 (Annexure P/1) and vide order dated 10.8.2018
(Annexure R/1) petitioner's representation has been decided as he is not
found to be entitled to get the status/grade of Sthai Karmi. Petitioner has not
challenged the order dated 10.8.2018. Petitioner is not entitled for any relief
and the petition deserves to be dismissed with cost.
4. Both the parties are heard at length and perused the entire record
with due care.
5. Labour Court No.2, Gwalior in Case No.76-A/04/ID Act
(Reference) has passed the following award:
(1) थम प का सेवा थ क करण वैध एवं उिचत नह ं है
अवैध छटनी है ।
(2) थम प तीय प क सेवा म पुन: थापना एवं पछला
वेतन पाने का अिधकार नह होगा अवैध छटनी के िलये तीय प से
पये 10,000/- दस हजार पये ितपूित रािश मा पाने का अिधकार
होगा। तीय प अवाड घोषणा उपरांत एक माह म ितधन का
भुगतान करे ।
अवाड पा रत।
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1973
4 WP-19180-2019
6. From the contents of the award it appears to have been passed on
the above four grounds:
(1) That the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days in a
calendar year.
(2) His services have been terminated without following the provisions
of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(3) The petitioner was entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/- in lieu
of reinstatement.
(4) He was not held to be entitled for back-wages.
7. Thus, from the said award it is clear that the petitioner was granted
compensation of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of reinstatement without any back-
wages. There is no observation with regard to denial of consequential relief
or continuity in service but this Court vide order dated 24.4.2017 passed in
W.P.No.8496/2011 (S) modified the aforesaid award passed by the Labour
Court and relief of reinstatement has been substituted for the relief of
compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
8. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao vs.
Kosan Industries (P) Ltd. reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 138 has held as
under:
6. The first grievance of the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant is that the High Court was in error in
misconstruing the award of the Labour Court as having denied
continuity of service. We find merit in the submission. The award
of the Labour Court is in the following terms: "The reference of
second party Nandkishor Shravan Ahirrao, 94, Shriram Kutir, near
Chikuvadi, Post Office- Fatehnagar, Udhna, Surat - 304220 -
C/o. Bombay foods Ltd. and Kosan Industries Ltd.,
Worker/Employee Union, Surat is hereby partly allowed. And the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1973
5 WP-19180-2019
first party of this case is hereby ordered that, they have to reinstate
the second party in service with 25% backwages for his surplus
days within 30 days from the publication of this order."
7 Ex facie, the Labour Court having awarded reinstatement to the
appellant, continuity of service would follow as a matter of law.
The award of the Labour Court dated 27 February 2008 does not
specifically deny continuity of service. Hence the observation of
the High Court to the effect that the Labour Court had denied
continuity of service is erroneous and would accordingly stand
corrected in terms of what has been observed herein-above. The
appellant would be entitled to continuity of service.
9. Thus, it is clear that this Court in the earlier round of litigation has
not specifically denied the benefit of continuity of service, then the same
would not follow as a manner of law. In the present case also, there is no
denial of continuity of service in specific terms. Petitioner was merely
denied the benefit of back-wages. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner is not
entitled for continuity of service upon his reinstatement.
10. Now the next question for consideration is as to what would be the
status of the petitioner on the date of termination of his service.
11. The petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wager vide order
dated 24.06.1996. At the time of retrenchment he was working in the same
capacity and vide order dated 24.4.2017 passed by this Court in
W.P.No.8496/2011 he was reinstated on the same post. Thus, his capacity
was not denied at the time of retrenchment also. Thus, the status of the
petitioner was of a daily wager even at the time of his reinstatement, but the
service of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the matter of Nandkishore (supra) would be said to be in continuity
since his initial date of appointment i.e.24.6.1996.
12. So far as relief of petitioner for consideration of his case for
regularization is concerned, since this Court has already held that services of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1973
6 WP-19180-2019
the petitioner are to be treated in continuity w.e.f. 19.1.2000, therefore, as
per terms of circular dated 7.10.2016 (Annexure P/1) the case of the
petitioner is required to be considered for regularization looking to the length
of his services.
13. Petitioner also prayed for back wages for the period of termination.
Since the petitioner remained out of service from 19.1.2010 to 24.7.2017,
therefore, on the basis of principle of no work no pay, he is not entitled for
any back-wages for the aforesaid period.
14. Resultantly, impugned order dated 10.8.2018 (Annexure P/7)
issued by Assistant Director (Karmik) M.P. State Agricultural Marketing
Board, MP is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to consider the
representation of the petitioner dated 9.4.2018 (Annexure P/3) followed by
reminder letter dated 3.6.2019 (Annexure P/4) by the reasoned and speaking
order within a period of three months and also convey the outcome to the
petitioner.
15. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. No order
as to cost.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
(alok)
