Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chhotelal Upadhyaya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10014
1 WP-1875-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 4 th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1875 of 2018
CHHOTELAL UPADHYAYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Basant Raj Pandey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla - Panel Lawyer for the respondents - State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"7.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the
respondents to regularize the petitioner.
7.2 That, any other writ direction order as may be deemed fit in
the circumstances may also be awarded along with the cost of
litigation."
2 . It is the case of the petitioner that he is working in the respondent
department since the year 1987, which is not at all in dispute, but despite that
neither the respondents have considered him for regularization nor for conferral of
benefits of Sthai Karmi policy dated 07.10.2016, whereby some benefits lesser
than benefits of regularization have been conferred on the daily rated employees.
3. It is further contended that though the respondents have come out in the
reply that benefits of Sthai Karmi policy have been granted to the petitioner by
order Annexure R-1 dated 07.04.2017, but the actual benefits flowing out of the
said order have not been granted in view of Clause 3 of policy dated 07.10.2016,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10014
2 WP-1875-2018
which bars any benefit to be paid to any employee, who has filed any case in the
High Court and a specific condition has been carved out in the policy dated
07.10.2016 to this effect.
4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State on the other hand has pointed out to
the averment made in the reply filed by the State and has submitted that
regularization is not a right and further the respondents have already granted the
benefit of Sthai Karmi Policy dated 07.10.2016 to the petitioner and therefore, no
further direction can be issued in favour of the petitioner.
5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the rival parties and on perusal of
the record, it is seen that the petitioner seeks a benefit of regularization, whereas
the respondent - State states to have conferred the benefit of Sthai Karmi Scheme
to the petitioner. It is not at all in dispute that upon conferral of benefit of Sthai
Karmi Policy any employee does not get the benefit of regularization and it is
some limited status of skilled, semi skilled or unskilled worker granted to daily
rated employees and cannot at all be equated with regularization. The contention
of the petitioner is that even the benefits of the order Annexure R-1 have actually
not been paid to the petitioner.
6. The State Government in compliance of para 53 of the judgment of the
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v.
Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 has framed the policy to consider the employees for
regularization, who have completed 10 years of service as on the date of issuance
of policy dated 16.05.2007. The petitioner admittedly is working since the year
1987 and entitled to be considered in terms of the said policy, which is a
sanctioned policy frame work set up by the State and every employee, who is in
the zone of consideration with such policy framework has a right to be considered
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10014
3 WP-1875-2018
under such policy.
7. The State in the reply has not come out with any plea that any
consideration for regularization has been made in the case of the petitioner or not
and only contention is that he has been considered for grant of limited benefit of
Sthai Karmi.
8. Consequently, this petition is disposed of with the following direction:-
(i) The respondents shall release the benefits flowing out of the
order Annexure R-1 dated 07.04.2016 within a period of four weeks
from today, if not already extended.
(ii) The respondents shall also consider the petitioner for
regularization in terms with their own policy dated 16.05.2007 and its
subsequent clarifications and modifications.
(iii) Let this consideration as per para (ii) above be made within
a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of
this order.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
rj
