Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kavita Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15504
1 WP-10270-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 28th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 10270 of 2025
SMT. KAVITA VISHWAKARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ritwik Parashar, learned Government Advocate for
respondent/State.
ORDER
The grievance of the petitioner is that he has completed 10 years of
service as daily rated employee but he has not been considered for
conferment of benefit of sthaikarmi. It is contended that even the employees
who were appointed after 16/07/2007 can be considered for conferment of
such benefits, if they fulfill the requirement as contained in Clause 1.8 of
circular 07/10/2016.
2. Learned counsel relies on judgment of this Court in WP
No.27125/2024 and submits that the representation of the petitioner is
already pending before the respondents. In WP No.27125/2024, this Court
has passed the following order:
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being
aggrieved of the Order dated 5.7.2024- Annexure P/1, whereby
the representation of the petitioner for conferring the status of
sthai karmi in terms of Policy dated 7.10.2016 has been rejected
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15504
2 WP-10270-2025
on the ground that the petitioner was engaged on daily rated basis
on 16.4.2012, which is later to 16.5.2007 and as per the Policy
dated 7.10.2016 - Annexure P/7, only those employees can be
given status of sthai karmi who were in employment as daily rated
employees on 16.5.2007 as well as on 1.9.2016 and therefore, the
petitioner being appointee of year 2012, he is not entitled for
being conferred with the status of daily rated employee.
2. Upon perusal of the documents placed on record, it is seen that
the petitioner was disengaged in the year 2007, though he was
working since the year 1990 and an order was issued vide
Annexure P/2 by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Rewa on
19.3.2012 directing the District Forest Officer, Rewa to re-engage
the petitioner looing to the fact that he is working from 1.1.1990
till 30.3.2007. It is evident that the petitioner was then re-engaged
in terms of this letter on 16.4.2012.
3. Upon perusal of the said letter/order - Annexure P/2, it is clear
that the petitioner was working in the Department since 1.1.1990
and he was retrenched in the year 2007, but reinstated in the year
2012. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not in
employment as on 16.5.2007. Even if the petitioner had been
deemed to be not in employment as on 16.5.2007, even then as
per Clause 1.8 of Circular dated 7.10.2016, those employees who
entered daily rated services after 16.5.2007 upon approval of
competent authority, then they are also entitled to be conferred
with the status of sthai karmi. The aforesaid second part of Clause
1.8 has not at all been looked into by the competent authority by
holding that the petitioner was not in service on 16.5.2007.
Consequently, the order - Annexure P/1 deserved to be and is
hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to take a fresh
decision on the case of the petitioner by adverting to the fact that
the petitioner was employee in the Department from 1.1.1990 till
30.3.2007, and thereafter, reinstated under orders of the competent
authority vide Annexure P/2 on 16.4.2012. Therefore, in any
event, he is covered under the Policy dated 7.10.2016.
4. Let the necessary considerations be made and appropriate orders
passed within a period of two months from the date of production
of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that upon being
conferred the status of sthai karmi, the petitioner would be entitled
to salary and fixation as per clause 1.3 to 1.6 of the Policy dated
7.10.2016.
5. With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands disposed of.
3. In view of the above, the respondents No.2 & 4 are directed to take
note of the grievance of the petitioner as raised vide Annx.P/10 and decide
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15504
3 WP-10270-2025
the same in accordance with law after making consideration of case of
petitioner as per the judgment passed in WP No.27125/2024.
4. Let the action be concluded within a period of two months from the
date of production of certified copy of this order.
5. With the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
RS
