Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamal Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 July, 2025
1 WP-4118-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 24th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4118 of 2023
KAMAL PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prabhakar Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Varidhi Pathak- Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
ORDER
By way of present petition, the petitioner has called into question the
order Annexure P/1 whereby the case of the petitioner for regularization has
been closed by the Director on the ground that in terms with the policy dated
07.10.2016, the employees conferred the status of Sthai Karmi under that
policy have to be considered further for regularization at District Level
Committee headed by Divisional Commissioner of the concerned Division
and, therefore, no action is warranted from the level of Director.
2. From a bare perusal of the chart Annexure P/3 prepared by the Dy.
Director, Horticulture, District Sagar, it is evident that petitioner is working
on daily wages since 01.04.1986. He is found to be given status of skilled
employee as per policy dated 07.10.2016 but since the benefits under the said
policy are much below what a regular employee gets on equivalent
status/post, therefore, the employees still have valid cause to contest for
2 WP-4118-2023
regularization despite being given the status of Sthai Karmi as per policy
dated 07.10.2016.
3. The respondents have countered the claim of the petitioner only on the
ground that the petitioner was not appointed after facing the competitive
examination and, therefore, he cannot be regularized.
4. While making the said contention it appears that the respondents have
not understood the very basic purpose of regularization which is only where
a person appointed in irregular manner is given the legitimacy by
regularizing his services. If the petitioner had been initially appointed by
facing competitive examination then there was no question of regularization
and there was no occasion for him to contest the writ petition 40 years after
his appointment for regularization because he would have been regular from
the very first date.
5. The respondents have not only violated their own instructions issued on
16.05.2007 in compliance of judgment of the Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma
Devi and Others reported in 2006(4) SCC 1 wherein the Constitution
Bench has issued instructions to the State Government for carrying out
exercise of regularization for all employees who have completed ten years of
service as on that date. Further the State Government even while issuing the
subsequent policy dated 07.10.2016, has laid down another scheme for
further regularization for those employees who are found to be covered
under policy dated 07.10.2016. However, the Director has simply said that
the consideration has to be made at District level and he has no say in the
3 WP-4118-2023
matter. If that was the position then it was obligatory for the Director to have
sent the matter back to the District Level Officer to place it before the
District Level Committee and the manner in which the Director has acted
does not seem to be appropriate manner in which a State Level Officer
should act just to deprive a very low paid daily rated employee his rightful
benefits.
6. Therefore, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The
impugned order Annexure P/1 is set aside. The respondents are directed to
consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as per policy dated
16.05.2007 along with its subsequent modifications. Let the consideration be
made either by the State Level Authority or by the District Level Authority,
whichever is competent. If consideration is not made then the respondents
No.2, 3 and 4 shall be held liable for the same. Let the consideration be made
and appropriate orders be passed within two months from the date of
production of copy of this order.
7. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
Rao
