Madhya Pradesh High Court
Akarshan Saraswat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12184
1 WP-17889-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 17 th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 17889 of 2021
AKARSHAN SARASWAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Girija Shankar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri G.K. Agrawal- Govt. Advocate for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming for following reliefs;
"(i) That, the respondents authority be directed to grant the
seniority from the date of initially appointment i.e. 01.08.1985 on
the post of Bill Clark as has been granted to similar junior
employeeto the petitioner.|
(ii) That, the respondents authority be directed to granted the all
consequential service benefit including annual increments, arrears
of salary seniority w.e.f. the date his juniors were granted the said
benefit by the respondents authority.
(iii) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be
awarded."
[2]. The facts necessary for decision of this are that the petitioner was
initially engaged on daily wages in Public Health Engineering Department on
01.05.1983. He continued to work in the department. On 17.03.1998, certain
persons junior to the petitioner were regularized by the respondents. Being
aggrieved, the petitioner filed O.A. No.1564 of 1998 in the erstwhile State
Administrative Tribunal which, on abolition of Tribunal, stood transferred to this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12184
2 WP-17889-2021
Court and was registered as W.P. No.4174 of 2003. The writ petition was disposed
of by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2004 (Annexure P/6) directing the
respondents to consider the petitioner's case for regularization. The said order was
challenged by the State Government before the Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 8899
of 2009 which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 20.07.2009. The
petitioner's case was thereafter considered for regularization and was so
regularized on the post of Bill Clerk vide order dated 22.01.2009 (Annexure P/8).
The petitioner was posted in the Office of Executive Engineer, Public Health
Engineering Department, Block-1, Gwalior (M.P.). It is gathered from the records
that the petitioner accepted the aforesaid order of regularization without any
protest and must have retired by now in the year 2020.
[3]. The petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming regularization from
the date of his initial appointment i.e. 01.08.1985. The claim of the petitioner is
based upon similar benefit granted to the junior persons vide order dated
17.03.1998.
[4]. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled
to regularization of services w.e.f. his initial date of engagement on daily wages
i.e. 01.08.1985. He submits that his junior persons were granted the similar benefit
vide order dated 17.03.1998 and further that this Court while disposing of W.P.
No.4174 of 2003 vide order dated 29.04.2009 directed the respondents to consider
the case of the petitioner for regularization and if he is found suitable, the benefit
be conferred on him from the date his juniors were granted the said benefit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the orders passed by this
Court in W.P. No.8285 of 2011 and W.P. No.4424 of 2015. He also referred to
certain orders passed by the respondents relating to some other persons whereby
the benefit of regularization was granted to them from the initial date of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12184
3 WP-17889-2021
appointment. He thus submits that the petitioner be also granted the benefit of
regularization from the date of his initial engagement on daily wages.
[5]. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents refuted the
contentions of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner accepted the
regularization from 22.01.2009 and did not raise any objection in this regard till
filing of this petition in the year, 2021. He, thus, submits that the instant writ
petition suffers from delay and latches on the part of petitioner. Learned counsel
for the respondents further submitted that the law does not permit regularization
with retrospective effect and it has to come into force from the date of order. He
also relied upon the Apex Court judgment passed in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and submitted that after the
said judgment of Apex Court, the petitioner cannot claim parity with the persons
who were already regularized prior to the said judgment. He, thus, submits that
the petition is without any substance and deserves to be dismissed.
[6]. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
[7]. The Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) has dealt with the
issue of regularization of persons engaged on daily wages without following due
process of law. In para-53 & 54, the Apex Court held as under;
"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where
irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in
S.V. Narayanappa (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa (supra), and B.N.
Nagarajan (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly
qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have
been made and the employees have continued to work for ten
years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of
tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such
employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the
principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and
in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India,
the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12184
4 WP-17889-2021
steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such
irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in
duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of
tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are
undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be
filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are
being now employed. The process must be set in motion within
six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if
any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based
on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the
constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent,
those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.
54. It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to
the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions
running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded
of their status as precedents."
[8]. Thus, in view of the aforesaid direction of the Apex Court, any
judgment or administrative order passed contrary to the law laid down by the
Apex Court is not having any force of law. Thus, the administrative orders relied
upon by the petitioner relating to similarly situated persons is of no help to the
petitioner. As far as orders passed by this Court in WP No.8285 of 2011 and WP
No.4424 of 2015 are concerned, this Court has not passed any order on merits of
the case and has simply disposed of the petitions with direction to the respondents
to consider the case of the petitioner therein for purposes of regularization of his
service. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondents vide order dated
22.02.2017 (page 39 of the writ petition) passed the order in relation to the four
persons directing regularization of those persons from the date of their initial
engagement on the ground that this Court has issued such directions in W.P. No.
4424 of 2015. However, a bare perusal of the order passed by this Court in said
writ petition reveals that no such direction was issued by this Court. Thus, the
petitioner cannot get any benefit of the orders passed by this Court also.
[9]. The another important aspect to be looked into in this case is the delay
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12184
5 WP-17889-2021
and latches on the part of the petitioner. Admittedly, the regularization order was
passed by the respondents on 22.01.2009. The petitioner accepted the said benefit
and did not raise any objection. It is only in the year, 2019 onwards he filed
certain representations and thereafter filed this writ petition on 06.09.2021. Thus,
there is complete silence on the part of petitioner w.e.f. 2009 till 2019 when he
made representation for the first time.
[10]. The Apex Court has dealt with the aspect of delay and latches on the
part of the litigant in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and
Sewerage Board and others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108
wherein para-16, the Apex Court held as under;
16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly
brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation
offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in
mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable
jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the
rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to
the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without
adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or
pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize
whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be
it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain
circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most
circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the
litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects
inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has
forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest
thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and
rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury
to the lis.
[11]. Similar is the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Union Of
India & Ors Vs. Hanuman Industries & Anr. reported in (2015) 6 SCC 600.
[12]. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had
also filed a writ petition bearing W.P. No.7243 of 2010 and, therefore, it cannot be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12184
6 WP-17889-2021
said that the petitioner was silent during all these period. This Court has
summoned the record of W.P. No.7243 of 2010 and perused the record of the said
case. It is found that the said case was filed by the petitioner claiming benefit of
regular pay-scale as a result of his permanent classification w.e.f. 27.11.2004 and
it does not relate to issue involved in this case. Thus, the petitioner does not get
any help from the order passed in W.P. No.7243 of 2010 also.
[13]. In view of the discussion made above, the petitioner is not entitled to
any relief in the instant writ petition. The petition is found to be without any
substance and is hereby, dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
vpn/-
