Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ku. Basanti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 January, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1 WP-16076-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 30th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 15980 of 2020
SHANKARLAL AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P. THROUGH MINISTRY OF AYUSH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yash Pal Rathore - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Kushagra Jain - Dy.G.A for the respondent/State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 16074 of 2020
HEERALAL AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P. THROUGH MINISTRY OF AYUSH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yash Pal Rathore - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Kushagra Jain - Dy.G.A for the respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 16076 of 2020
KU. BASANTI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yash Pal Rathore - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Kushagra Jain - Dy.G.A for the respondent/State.
ORDER
2 WP-16076-2020
The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking directions to the respondents to regularize
services of the petitioner on the post of Ayurved Compounder from the date
of initial appointment.
They have claimed regularization on the ground that the identically
placed employees have been regularized after relying on the judgment
passed in the case of Keeratlal Chouhan Vs. State of M.P and Ors. (W.A
No.25/2017), Annexure P-8. The respondents filed an objection that the
petition suffers from delay and latches. Their petition is filed after a period of
18 years from the date of appointment. This Court today allowed the case of
identically placed employees i.e Smt. Sunita Dixit and Ors. vs. Principal
Secretary State of M.P and Ors. (WP No.9998/2012) and Manoj Parsai vs.
The State of M.P and Ors.(W.P No.3693/2015) by setting aside the order of
rejection of representation of the petitioners for regularization. In the said
petitions it was noted that the similarly situated employees namely Mr.
Hemant Nagar, Mr. Ashish Joshi, Mr. Ravi Sharma and others were granted
regularization from the date of initial appointment. The petitioner of the said
case and other petitioners filed writ petition seeking direction for
regularization. The said petitions were disposed with the direction to the
respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners.However, the
same was rejected. The said order was challenged in the aforesaid petitions
of Smt. Sunita Dixit and Ors. and Shri Manoj Parsai. Those petitions have
been allowed on the ground that the petitioners were from 1998-1999 batch
and were identically placed to the employees who have been granted
3 WP-16076-2020
regularization from the date of initial appointment. Though, the petitions
have been filed in the year 2020 but it has been stated that the petitioners
were making representations to the respondents after the judgment passed by
the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No(s).1874/2018 (The State of M.P and
Ors. vs. Ishwar Dayal Tembhre). This Court after considering the judgment
passed by the Division Bench in the case of Ishwar Dayal Tembhre (supra)
against which the SLP was dismissed, allowed the petitions today. Thus, this
Court finds that the case of the petitioners is identical to the case of aforesaid
petitions as the petitioners of the said cases were also appointed in the year
1998-1999 in pursuant to the same advertisement. Hence, the present
petitions are also allowed. The respondents are directed to regularize the
services of the petitioners from the date of initial appointment. However,
considering the objection of delay and latches by the respondents, it is
directed that the petitioners shall be entitled for monetary benefits and
interest from the date of filing of the petition i.e 12/10/2020. However, the
services of the petitioners would be counted from the date of initial
appointment for the purpose of seniority, promotion, pension etc.
With the aforesaid, present petitions are allowed and disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
PK
