Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sunita Dixit And 2 Ors. vs Principal Secretary State Of M.P. And 2 ... on 30 January, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2469
1 WP-9998-2012
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. 9998 of 2012
SMT. SUNITA DIXIT AND 2 ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 2 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Manav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushagra Jain - Dy.G.A for the respondent/State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 3693 of 2015
MANOJ PARSAI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Manav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushagra Jain - Dy.G.A for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Heard on I.A No.11752/2024, which is an application for urgent
hearing.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the
issue involved in the present petition which appear to be concluded by
this Court, therefore, the application is allowed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2469
2 WP-9998-2012
3. With the consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally.
4. Regard being held to the similitude of the facts and grounds of
both the case, both the petitions are being decided by the common order.
The facts of the case are noted from W.P No.9998/2012(s).
5. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order dated 19/7/2011 by which the
regularization of services petitioners from the date of initial appointment
has been denied.
6. Facts of the case draped in brevity are that initially an
advertisement dated 27.11.1997 was issued for the appointment on
various post including the post of Ayurved of Compounder on
Contractual basis and by order dated 16.4.1999 and 29.6.1999,
petitioners were appointed on the post of Ayurved Compounder for three
years. The period of contract was extended time to time till the date of
regularization. The services of other similarly situated Ayurved
Compounders were regularized by the orders of State Govt., but the case
of petitioners for regularization was not considered, therefore, petitioners
submitted their representations for regularization of their service and
finally by order dated 24.6.2009, the services of petitioners have been
regularized, copy of regularization order is annexed here as Annexure
P/4, the petitioners are entitled for regularization of their service from
initial date of appointment, but their services has been regularized from
the date of issuance of regularization order. By order dated 11.3.2010,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2469
3 WP-9998-2012
services of some of the similarly situated Ayurved Compounder have
been regularized from their initial date of appointment and in the order it
has been observed that, they have been regularized on the basis of
directions issued by High Court of M.P . Petitioners are identically
placed persons to the employee, whose name have been included in
annexure P/5 for regularization of their services from the initial date of
appointment, so petitioners have preferred a representation before the
respondents for regularization of their services from the initial date of
appointment. But, nothing has been done therefore, writ petitions were
filed by the petitioners seeking direction for consideration of their name
for regularization of their service from initial date of appointment and
this Court passed the direction by order dated 5.5.2011, whereby the writ
petitions preferred by the petitioners were disposed off with a direction
to the competent authority to decide/examine the claim of petitioners for
regularization of their services from the initial date of appointment. In
pursuance to the direction of this Court, petitioners have submitted their
representation claming the relief of regularization from initial date of
appointment to the respondents. One Mr Hemant Nagar and Mr. Ashish
Joshi along with the other identically placed person had also preferred a
Writ Petition before this Court for regularization of their services from
the initial date of appointment and this Court directed the respondents to
consider the case of petitioners for regularization of their services from
the initial date of appointment. In compliance to the direction issued by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2469
4 WP-9998-2012
this Court, the respondents have passed the order of regularization of
services from the initial date of appointment by its orders dated
14.12.2011. In other similar case of Mr. Ravi Sharma & Others Vs. State
of M.P. & Others (W.P. No. 139/2012(s)) this Court directed the
respondents to consider the case of petitioners for regularization of their
services from the initial date of appointment and in compliance to the
order/direction of this Court the respondents have regularized the
services of petitioners with all consequential benefits by its order dated
28.1.2012. The cases of petitioners are identical to the case of Mr.
Hemant Nagar, Ashish Joshi and Ravi Sharma whose services has been
regularized from the date of initial appointment. Initially the services of
Mr. Ashish Joshi, Hemant Nagar and Mr. Ravi Sharma were regularized
along with the cases of the petitioners, which is very much visible by
mere perusal of annexure P/4. The petitioners were appointed on the
basis of same advertisement by which Mr. Nagar, Mr. Joshi and Mr.
Sharma were appointed and terms of qualification, petitioners are also on
same footing, so they are also entitled for regularization of their services
from their initial date of appointment.
7. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the representation of the
petitioner has been erroneously and mechanically rejected without
proper consideration of the facts and the orders passed in the case of
similarly situated employees. It is argued that on the basis of same
advertisement, the other candidates who were appointed have been given
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2469
5 WP-9998-2012
the regularization from initial date of appointment. It is vehemently
argued that the cases of identically placed persons namely Shri Hemant
Nagar & Shri Ashish Joshi were considered in pursuant to similar order
passed by this Court in W.P No.6160/2010(s) and have been regularized
from the initial date of appointment by order dated 14/12/2011. It is
further argued that in similar case of Ravi Sharma and Others vs. State
of M.P (W.P No.139/2012(s)) they have also been regularized from the
initial date of appointment with all consequential benefits by order dated
28/1/2012 in pursuant to the same order passed by this Court directing
the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization
of their services. However, the petitioners have been discriminated and
their representation for regularization has been rejected on the ground
that the persons who have been regularized were appointed in pursuant
to the recruitment of the backlog vacancies. Thus, he argued that the
order passed by the respondents is illegal and arbitrary. He further
argued that the cases of the petitioners are identical to the cases of those
employees who have been regularized from initial date of appointment
as the petitioners were also appointed in pursuant to the same
advertisement in the year 1998. There cases could not have been treated
differently and the cases were not distinct from those employees. In
support of his submission he had placed reliance on the judgment of the
Division Bench passed in the case of Ishwar Dayal Tembhre vs. State of
M.P and Ors. (W.A No.24/2017) and connected appeal 25/2017(Keerat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2469
6 WP-9998-2012
Lal Chouhan vs. State of M.P and Ors.) decided on 4/5/2017. It is further
contended that against the said order, the State has filed S.L.P (Civil)
Diary No.1874/2018 which was dismissed by order dated 29/7/2019.
8. Per contra, counsel for the State supported the impugned order
and stated that cases of the petitioners for regularization has rightly been
rejected. It is submitted that by order passed in the case of Suchit Kumar
Choukade vs. State of M.P in W.P No.4170/2011, the Bench at Indore
has dismissed the bunch of writ petitions claiming regularization.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties this Court finds
that the impugned order of rejecting the claim of the petitioners for
regularization is not sustainable in law. From the aforesaid contentions
and facts, it is evident that alongwith the other employees in pursuant to
the same advertisement dated 27/11/1997, the petitioners were also
appointed on the post of Ayurved Compounder on contractual basis. By
order dated 24/6/2009, the similarly situated employees were regularized
from the date of order of regularization. The petitioners were identically
placed persons to the aforesaid employees whose names have been
included in Annexure P-5 for regularization of their services. The
petitioners preferred representation of regularization of their services.
However, the same was not considered and therefore, the W.P
No.9863/2010(s), W.P No.9862/2010(s) & W.P No.9859/2010(s) were
filed. The aforesaid writ petitions were disposed off with a direction to
the competent authority of the respondents to examine the petitioners
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2469
7 WP-9998-2012
claim for regularization from the initial date of appointment keeping in
view the case of identically placed employees. In pursuant to the
directions of the High Court, petitioners submitted their representation.
The similar order was passed in the case of identically placed employees
of general category namely Shri Hemant Nagar & Shri Ashish Joshi in
W.P No.6160/2010(s). The said petition was also disposed off with a
direction to the competent authority to consider their representation as
similarly placed employees were regularized. In compliance to the said
order, the respondents have regularized their services from initial date of
appointment by order dated 14/12/2011. In the case of other similarly
situated employees Ravi Sharma and Ors. vs. State of M.P and Ors.(W.P
No.1399/2012(s)), the similar directions were issued and they were
regularized from the date of initial appointment with consequential
benefits.
10. Counsel for the petitioner submits that they have also been
granted monetary benefits from the date of initial appointment.
However, the case of the petitioners was rejected by the impugned order.
11. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the case of the
petitioners is identically placed to the case of Hemant Nagar, Ashish
Joshi, Ravi Sharma and Ors. who have been granted the benefits of
regularization of services from the initial date of appointment vide order
dated 14/12/2011, Annexure P-9 and order dated 28/1/2012, Annexure
P-10. In the reply, the respondents have stated that since the case of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2469
8 WP-9998-2012
Suchit Kumar Choukhade and Others were dismissed by Bench at Indore
vide order passed in W.P No.4170/2011 and, therefore, the cases of the
petitioners were also rejected for regularization of services. From perusal
of the impugned order, this Court does not find that the said reason has
been assigned in the impugned order. Even otherwise, the cases of
Suchit Kumar Choukhade and others are not identical to the case of
petitioners they were appointed in 2005 whereas the petitioner is
appointed with effect from 1998-1999, in pursuant to the advertisement
to which the similarly situated employees have been regularized. The
Division Bench in the case of Ishwar Dayal Tembhre vs. State of MP &
Ors. (W.A No.24/2017) has clearly held that in para 9 that the employees
who were appointed in the year 1999 in pursuant to the same
advertisement form a separate class for regularization. Para 9 of the said
order is reproduced as under:-
9. The other ground on the basis of which the
petition has been dismissed is that the petitioners
have not shown any statutory provisions of law for
regularization from the date of their initial date of
appointment and in absence of such provision of
law, their prayer for regularization cannot be
considered, as even the executive instructions have
not been brought to the notice of this Court. The
aforesaid order passed in the case of Suchit Kumar
Choukade (supra) has been relied upon by the
learned Single Judge in the case at hand and has
been held to be applicable mutatis mutandis. We are
afraid that we are unable to endorse the aforesaid
findings of the writ Court as we are of the view that
if the persons of reserved categories as also of the
general category have been appointed on the basis
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2469
9 WP-9998-2012
of same or similar advertisement for the similar
posts, their individual cases cannot be discriminated
only on the ground of their category so far as the
conditions of service are concerned and if such
discrimination is allowed to stand, the same would
be in clear violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
12. Thus, it is established that the impugned order is passed
arbitrarily and discriminately as identically situated persons in pursuant
to the same advertisement have been regularized from the date of initial
appointment vide order dated 14/12/2011 Annexure P-9 and order dated
28/1/2012. Thus, in view of the aforesaid and the facts of the present
case, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order Annexure P-
1 is quashed. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of
the petitioner on the post of Ayurved compounder from the date of initial
appointment. Further, if the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is
found correct that the identically placed employees have been given
monetary benefits, the respondents shall also give monetary benefits to
the petitioners from the date of initial appointment.
13. With the aforesaid, present petitions are allowed and disposed
off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
PK
