Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Kumar Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 June, 2025
1 WA-2357-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 25th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 2359 of 2023
RADHESHYAM PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri L. C. Patne - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - GA for the State.
WITH
WRIT APPEAL No. 2356 of 2023
SANTOSH KUMAR RATHORE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri L. C. Patne - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - GA for the State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 2357 of 2023
RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri L. C. Patne - Advocate for the appellant.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 25-06-2025
19:34:24
2 WA-2357-2023
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - GA for the State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 2358 of 2023
KAMLESH PRAJAPATI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri L. C. Patne - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - GA for the State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 268 of 2024
MANSARAM KEWAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri L. C. Patne - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - GA for the State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 269 of 2024
SEVAKRAM BIRLA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri L. C. Patne - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - GA for the State.
ORDER
Per: Sanjeev Sachdeva, Acting Chief Justice
Appellants impugned common judgment passed in the separate writ
petitions filed by the appellants dated 09.11.2023 whereby the writ petitions
3 WA-2357-2023
filed by the appellants were dismissed.
2. Appellants had filed the said writ petitions seeking directions to
the respondents to absorb them on the post of Village Secretary (Gram
Sahayak). Appellants were appointed on different dates. Appellant Santosh
Kumar Rathore in Writ Appeal No.2356 of 2023 was appointed on
02.10.1994, appellant Rajesh Kumar Rathore in Writ Appeal No.2357 of
2023 was appointed on 28.01.1995, appellant Kamlesh Prajapati in Writ
Appeal No.2358 of 2023 was appointed on 29.09.1995, appellant
Radheshyam Patel in Writ Appeal No.2359 of 2023 was appointed on
16.10.1995, appellant Mansaram Kewat in Writ Appeal No.268/2024 was
appointed on 01.04.1992 and appellant Sevakram Birla in Writ Appeal
No.269/2024 was appointed on 28.06.1994. All the appellants were
appointed as Assistant Secretary under the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram
Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993.
3. Appellants had filed respective writ petitions claiming parity with
the case of one Manohar Khede who was the writ petitioner in Writ Petition
No.4399/2025 which was decided on 13.10.2006 . After the initial
appointment of the appellants, like is the case of Manohar Khede, the
appointment of all the appellants was approved by the Deputy Director of
Panchayat and Social Services.
4. There is no dispute in regard to their eligibility for appointment.
The only issue is as to whether they are liable to be absorbed on the post of
Village Secretary (Gram Sahayak) or not? The case of the respondents was
that by circular dated 12.09.1995, the post of Gram Sahayak was declared as
4 WA-2357-2023
dying cadre and ban was imposed on appointment of new Gram Sahayak.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the said
post was declared as dying cadre, there could be no absorption of the
appellant on the said post.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellants contends that since
all the appellants were appointed prior to 12.09.1995 they were liable to be
absorbed as in the case of Manohar Khede .
7. Learned Single Judge by the impugned order has held that there is
no parity in the case of the appellants with that of Manohar Khede . Learned
Single Judge has held that in the case of Manohar Khede , he was absorbed
under the circular dated 07.09.1979, whereas the case of the appellants was
covered under the circular dated 22.08.1994, as they were appointed after the
said date and as such, the ratio in the case of Manohar Khede could not be
made applicable to the case of the appellants and thus they were not similarly
situated and entitled to similar relief.
8. We have examined the records of each of the cases and noticed
that in the case of Manohar Khede , the learned Single Judge, of this Court
vide judgment dated 13.10.2006 in Writ Petition No.4399/2005(s) has
allowed the said writ petition relying on the judgment in the case of Govind
Sharma and Nandram Chandrabag who were petitioners in the Writ Petition
No.8825/2003 and held that since they have all been appointed prior to the
said post, being declared dying cadre, they could not be denied absorption in
terms of the circular dated 22.08.1994.
9. The observations of the learned Single Judge that Manohar Khede
5 WA-2357-2023
was absorbed under circular dated 07.09.1979 and not in terms of circular
dated 22.08.1994 is not borne out from the record. Manohar Khede was
appointed on 10.05.1995 and was covered under the circular dated
22.08.1994. In the case of the appellants except Mansaram Kewat and
Sewakram Birla, they all were appointed after 22.08.1994 but before the post
was declared a dying cadre on 12.09.1995 and as such their cases are
identical to the case of Manohar Khede . The facts of the case of Mansaram
Kewat and Sewakram Birla are on a better footing than the other Appellants
as they were appointed on 01.04.1992 and 15.02.1992 respectively.
10. As per the circular dated 07.09.1979 and 17.11.1992, all
similarly situated persons were liable to be absorbed. The benefit was further
extended by the circular dated 22.08.1994 and the said policy of absorption
was in operation till 12.09.1995 when the cadre was declared to be a Dying
Cadre. Appellants who were all appointed prior to the decision being taken
to declare the post as dying cadre are identically situated to the case of
Manohar Khede .
11. For the sake of completeness, we may also note that though the
cut off date is fixed as 12.09.1995, the cut off date was notified by circular
dated 17.11.1995 but making it applicable retrospectively w.e.f. 12.09.1995.
In the case of the appellants since they were appointed prior to the cadre
being declared a dying cadre they would be covered by the policy as was
applicable on the date of their appointment. Their right for absorption
would emanate from the policy as obtaining on the date of their initial
appointment. Since the appointment was prior to 12.09.1995 they are entitled
6 WA-2357-2023
for absorption. Clearly they could not have been denied this benefit by the
respondents. It is not in dispute that in the case of Manohar Khede the
absorption has been granted though after prolonged litigation even upto the
Supreme Court. Consequently, since identically situated persons have been
absorbed, there is no justification to treat the appellants differently from
Manohar Khede . Consequently we are of the view that the learned Single
Judge has erred in holding that there is no parity between the case of the
Appellants and the case of Manohar Khede . Thus, the impugned judgment
dated 09.11.2023 is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside.
12. In view of the above, these writ appeals are allowed and
respondents are directed to absorb the petitioners on the post of Gram
Sahayak from the date of their initial appointment i.e.
(i) Santosh Kumar Rathore (appellant in Writ Appeal No.2356 of
2023) w.e.f. 02.10.1994
( i i ) Rajesh Kumar Rathore (appellant in Writ Appeal No.2357 of
2023) w.e.f. 28.01.1995,
(iii) Kamlesh Prajapati (appellant in Writ Appeal No.2358 of 2023)
w.e.f. 29.09.1995,
(iv) Radheshyam Patel (appellant in Writ Appeal No.2359 of 2023)
w.e.f. 16.10.1995,
(v) Mansaram Kewat (appellant in Writ Appeal No.268/2024) w.e.f.
01.04.1992,
( v i ) Sevakram Birla (appellant in Writ Appeal No.269/2024) w.e.f.
28.06.1994
7 WA-2357-2023
and to give them similar benefits as allowed in the case of Manohar
Khede. Necessary compliance be done by the respondents within a period of
six weeks from today. No order as to cost.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
ajit
