Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krishna Kumar Thakrele vs Shri Davindra Pal Ahuja on 25 March, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1 CONC-2968-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CONC No. 2968 of 2024
(KRISHNA KUMAR THAKRELE AND OTHERS Vs SHRI DAVINDRA PAL AHUJA AND OTHERS )
Dated : 25-03-2025
Shri Mohan Lal Sharma - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Bharat Singh - Advocate for the respondent-Chief Engineer.
Shri Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Chief Engineer
along with Shri Krishna Pal Singh Rana, Engineer-in-chief, Public Works
Department, Jabalpur Division No.1, Jabalpur, present in person.
2. Shri Mohan Lal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
High Court had passed order dated 01.04.2024 in W.P. No.6227/2024,
wherein it was mentioned that certain employees were classified as
permanent vide award dated 06.08.1998 passed by the Presiding Officer of
the Labour Court, Balaghat. Awards were enclosed along with the writ
petition as Annexures P-2 to P-10. Once petitioners were classified as
permanent, they are entitled to benefit of permanent classification from the
date of their permanent classification in the light of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray and
others, (2017) 3 SCC 436.
3. It was further submitted that since petitioners stood permanently
classified, circular/policy dated 07.10.2016 will not be applicable to the
petitioners' case and they are to be governed by the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra). Thereafter, directions
were issued to consider cases of the petitioners for regularization in the light
2 CONC-2968-2024
of the judgment of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi
and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and not in terms of GAD circular dated
07.10.2016.
4. A compliance report vide I.A.No.8268/2024 was filed along with the
affidavit of one Shri Bharat Singh Adme, Executive Engineer, Public Works
Department, Division No.1, District Balaghat and in this compliance report it
is mentioned that respondents have decided the representation of the
petitioners vide order dated 19.09.2024, copy marked as Annexure R-1.
5. A perusal of Annexure R-1 dated 19.09.2024 signed by one Shri S.C.
Verma, Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Jabalpur Division,
Jabalpur, wherein it is mentioned that in terms of the directions issued by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Uma Devi (supra) on 10.04.2006,
Government had issued circular dated 16.05.2007 and all the 7 petitioners
were not found eligible for regularization, inasmuch as, at the time of their
appointment there were no sanctioned posts available and the provisions of
reservation were also not followed with further stipulation that their
recruitment was not in terms of the rules and other conditions were not
fulfilled.
6. Thereafter, Chief Engineer has mentioned that in terms of the Finance
Department circular issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Vallabh
Bhawan, Mantralaya, bearing No.F 5-1/20103/1/3, Bhopal dated 07.10.2016,
all the daily wagers have been given benefit of regularization, copy enclosed
as Annexure B. Though Enclosure B is not enclosed, but this order of
compliance, promoted this Court to pass orders on 24.03.2025 in the present
3 CONC-2968-2024
contempt petition clearly observing that the authorities are trying to fool the
Court.
7. At this stage, Shri Bharat Singh, learned counsel submits that the State
has withdrawn the order dated 19.09.2024. He submits that orders of the
High Court will be complied in letter and spirit within two weeks.
8. On his request, two weeks' time is granted to make compliance, but not
without imposing cost on the Chief Engineer who passed the order of
compliance dated 19.09.2024 trying to fool the Court and reading the orders
of the Court mischievously. Chief Engineer is directed to deposit a cost of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) to the High Court Legal Services
Committee, Jabalpur, from his own salary account through his personal
account payee cheque which will not be debitable to the public exchequer for
trying to mislead the Court by mischievously passing fraudulent orders
dehors the spirit of the orders of the High Court.
9. Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, is also directed conduct
departmental enquiry against the Chief Engineer for playing fraud with the
High Court by bypassing the orders of the High Court and passing an
mischievous order so to blindfold the High Court to submit that compliance
has been made. Principal Secretary of the department will initiate
Departmental Enquiry against the Chief Engineer and shall make an
endeavour to complete it within a period of 3 months and submit its report to
the Registry.
10. Two weeks' time as prayed for, is granted to make the compliance of
the order and while making compliance if the stand of the Chief Engineer is
4 CONC-2968-2024
to be maintained, then all documentary evidence in regard to the documents
pertaining to the appointment of the petitioners, number of vacancies which
were available at the time of their appointment, the roster which was
available and the roster points will be brought by the Chief Engineer on
record. Engineer-in-Chief shall again remain personally present on the next
date, if the compliance is not made.
11. List this case on 09.04.2025.
12. Request of Shri Bharat Singh, learned counsel to consider the aspect of
cost and departmental enquiry while admitting that such nonsensical orders
will not be passed in future, is rejected.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
pp
