M.P. State Agricultural Marketing ... vs Ajit Singh
2025 Latest Caselaw 464 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

M.P. State Agricultural Marketing ... vs Ajit Singh on 7 May, 2025

Author: Anand Pathak

Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10135




                                                              1                               WA-1327-2025
                               IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT GWALIOR
                                                         BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                                                            &
                                             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
                                                       ON THE 7 th OF MAY, 2025
                                                 WRIT APPEAL No. 1327 of 2025
                            M.P. STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD 26 ARERA HILLS
                                        KISHAN BHAWAN BHOPAL AND OTHERS
                                                       Versus
                                              AJIT SINGH AND OTHERS
                          Appearance:
                            Shri S.P.Jain- Advocate for appellants/Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti.
                            Shri Vivek Khedkar- Senior Advocate/AAG for respondent No.2/State.
                            Ms. Smrati Sharma- Advocate for respondent No.1.
                                                               ORDER

Per: Justice Anand Pathak The present appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred by the appellants/Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti being crestfallen by the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.19180 of 2019 whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) was allowed to the extent that respondent No.1 is treated to be continued in the

Department after being reinstated with further direction to the appellants to reconsider the case of respondent No.1 for grant of benefits of Sthai Karmi as per circular dated 07.10.2016.

It is the submission of learned counsel for appellants/Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti that earlier, respondent No.1 was working as Daily Wage Employee. He was removed from Daily Wage Employee on 20.01.2000. When he filed

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10135

2 WA-1327-2025 application before the Labour Court challenging the removal, then Labour Court granted compensation instead of reinstatement, holding his termination illegal in violation of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. Challenging the order of compensation, respondent No.1 filed a writ petition before the writ Court in which, petition was allowed and respondent No.1 was directed to be reinstated without back wages. Therefore, order of Labour Court was modified to that extent.

Being encouraged by the reinstatement, respondent No.1 filed an application/representation for conferral of benefits as per Circular dated 07.10.2016 to treat him as Sthai Karmi, but that representation got rejected. Therefore, respondent No.1 filed the instant petition (W.P. No.19180/2019) and considering the fact-situation, learned Writ Court allowed the petition to the extent that the period during which respondent No.1 remained out of employment, was

treated to be continued in service, therefore, any illegal impediment which may have blocked the way of respondent No.1 was removed and clarified by the learned Writ Court. Said approach is erroneous. Therefore, this writ appeal has been preferred.

Learned counsel for appellants advanced arguments at length. According to him, respondent No.1 cannot be considered for granting benefits as per circular dated 07.10.2016 because he did not continue in job.

Counsel for respondent No.1 opposed the prayer and submits that as per the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao Vs. Kosan Industries (P) Ltd. reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 138 , once reinstatement order is passed, then respondent No.1 is treated to be continuous in service.

Heard the rival submissions.

This is a case where writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 is allowed to the extent that Department shall reconsider the case of respondent No.1 for Sthai

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10135

3 WA-1327-2025 Karmi. As per the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao (supra), it is clear that a person,who is reinstated, gets benefit of notional treatment of continuous in service. Here in the present case, respondent No.1 got reinstated vide order dated 24.04.2017, therefore, he is to be treated as continuous in service as per the mandate of Apex Court. Once he is treated to be continuous in service, then he is certainly entitled to get benefits accrued accordingly.

In the present case at hand, no illegality or impropriety has been caused by learned Writ Court while disposing of writ petition with certain directions. No case for interference is made out. Appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed.

Appellants are directed to reconsider the case of respondent No.1 in accordance with law and as per the mandate of circular dated 07.10.2016.

Needful be done within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

C.C. as per rules.

                                   (ANAND PATHAK)                                        (HIRDESH)
                                       JUDGE                                               JUDGE
                          *AVI*