Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhupendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56122
1 WP-20194-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 7 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 20194 of 2024
ISWAR CHANDRA MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal - Senior Advocate with Shri Kapil Sharma - Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri Anshuman Swamy - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 11753 of 2024
RAJNARAYAN PANDEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Brindavan Tiwari - Senior Advocate with Shri Kapil Sharma -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anshuman Swamy - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
Shri Ajay Kumar Shukla - Advocate for respondent No.4.
WRIT PETITION No. 20094 of 2024
DEEN BANDHU TRIPATHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal - Senior Advocate with Shri Kapil Sharma -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 10-11-2025
15:11:11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56122
2 WP-20194-2024
Shri Anshuman Swamy - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 20191 of 2024
BHUPENDRA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal - Senior Advocate with Shri Kapil Sharma -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anshuman Swamy - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 20542 of 2024
UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal - Senior Advocate with Shri Kapil Sharma -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anshuman Swamy - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 20558 of 2024
SHANKAR LAL SONDHIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal - Senior Advocate with Shri Kapil Sharma -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anshuman Swamy - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 22757 of 2024
GYANENDRA PRASAD MISHRA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 10-11-2025
15:11:11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56122
3 WP-20194-2024
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal - Senior Advocate with Shri Kapil Sharma -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anshuman Swamy - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 22771 of 2024
LAXMIKANT PANDEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal - Senior Advocate with Shri Kapil Sharma -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anshuman Swamy - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
All these petitions are filed seeking identical reliefs and are filed on
identical facts, therefore, they are being decided by this common order.
2. All the petitioners have retired from Class-III posts of Pharmacists or
Radiographers or Lab Technicians in Hospitals/Health Centers run the
Madhya Pradesh Public Health and Family Welfare Department at
District Satna. Petitioner in WP No.22757 of 2024 and W.P.
No.20558/2024 are still in service and due to retire shortly.
3. All the petitioners were appointed initially on Ad-hoc basis, on
regular pay scale on different dates between the years 1985 to 1989. The
petitioners since the very initial date of their appointment have been
drawing regular pay-scale with increments and their service books were
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56122
4 WP-20194-2024
prepared from the initial date of appointment and the services books are
duly placed on record. All the petitioners were duly granted benefit of
financial upgradations and used to draw regular increments till
retirement, and the serving petitioners are drawing increments. They were
also granted benefit of different Pay Revisions as per recommendations
of different Pay Commissions as accepted by the Government of Madhya
Pradesh from time to time and they have either retired, or are on the
verge of retirement.
4. Undisputedly, the petitioners completed their entire services in the
same manner as a regular employee would do by getting regular pay-
scale with increments, financial upgradations and pay revisions. They
were fixed in accordance with Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Pay Commissions
recommendations as accepted by the State Government from time to time
and entries to that effect are duly marked in the service books of the
petitioners which are placed on record before this Court.
5. Now after or near retirement of petitioners, regularisation has been
denied, that means denial of pension to the petitioners on the ground that
their services were never regularized. However, in WP No.11753 of
2024, initially anticipatory pension was sanctioned, but, later on, some
objection was raised that since there is no regularization order of the
petitioner therein, then even the anticipatory pension is alleged to have
been stopped without passing any formal order.
6. The claim of the petitioners is that their regularization was only a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56122
5 WP-20194-2024
formality and their entire services were like a regular employee and were
not like a daily rated employee because the petitioners completed their
entire services on regular pay scale. Only for the reason that in the service
book the word "Adhoc" was mentioned, at the time of retirement pension
is being denied to the petitioners on the ground that in the service book
the word "Regular" is not mentioned.
7. It is contended by the petitioners that the petitioners duly had the
requisite educational qualification at the time of appointment, they were
appointed against sanctioned and vacant posts, there was requirement of
their work in the Department and they have worked for almost 30 to 35
years prior to their superannuation.
8. The petitioners contend that though the petitioners were not daily
rated employees but were employees on regular pay scale and Adhoc
employees, then even if the circular of the State Government dated
16.05.2007, which has been framed for regularization of daily rated
employees is seen, the said circular defines illegal and irregular
employees.
9. It is contended that in the said circular "illegal employee" means
employee appointed without existence of post, in violation of reservation,
not having requisite age and qualification at the time of appointment,
appointment being made by person without any authority or appointment
being made despite prohibition by law.
10. On the other hand, it is argued that "irregular appointment" is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56122
6 WP-20194-2024
defined by the State Government itself as per clause 4.2 of the said
circular as an appointment which has been made by not following the
recruitment process as prescribed under the Rules framed by exercising
powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the irregularity
in that event would not go to the root of the employment because it would
only be a procedural lapse. It is further mentioned that in other words, a
duly qualified and eligible person appointed without following the
recruitment process, would be a irregular appointee.
11. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioners, even if the policy for
regularization of daily rated employees is considered, would be at the
most, irregular appointees and even if they had been daily rated
employees, then also they had a right to be considered for regularization.
However, the petitioners, on the other hand, completed their entire
service of 30 to 35 years as regular employees by drawing all the salaries
and other facilities of regular employees but now, in their evening of life,
at the time of retirement, pension is being denied to them. Though it is
submitted that some of the petitioners have got anticipatory pension but
no final pension has been sanctioned and their right to get pension is
being disputed and contested by the State.
12. It is the case of the State that the petitioners are not entitled to get
pension or to be given the status of regular employees because the
petitioners were appointed without following due process of law, without
issuing advertisement and without facing selection process.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56122
7 WP-20194-2024
13. The aforesaid contention of the State cannot be accepted at this
distance of time because the petitioners were not working as daily rated
employees. They were working as Adhoc employees, getting all the
salary and facilities as given to a regular employee like pay-scale,
increments, pay revisions etc. including financial upgradations and only
at the fag end of service career, pension is being denied on the technical
ground that in the service books of the petitioners their status is
mentioned as "Adhoc" in place of "Regular".
14. The respondents have put the petitioners in a situation worse than
the situation faced by the daily rated employees, because the daily rated
employees also had been regularized at different points of time by the
State Government whereas the petitioners' status was much higher as
compared to that of daily rated employees.
15. Apart from the above, the petitioners have brought on record an
order of one Nirpat Singh in WP No.11753 of 2024 who was also
appointed as Adhoc employee on the post of Lab Technician and he was
also appointed in like manner in the year 1985 in the same District.
However, in the case of Nirpat Singh, the respondents have issued an
order Annexure P-8 dated 04.10.2017 whereby said Nirpat Singh has
been given status of regular employee from the date of first appointment
as Adhoc employee i.e. w.e.f. 09.12.1985.
16. The petitioners duly appear to be exactly similarly placed as that of
Nirpat Singh and in the case of Nirpat Singh, the State Government rose
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56122
8 WP-20194-2024
to the occasion and did justice with that person and rightly granted him
status of regular employee from the date of first appointment as Adhoc
employee whereas the same treatment has been denied to the petitioners.
17. It is settled in law that though regularization may not be an absolute
right but once one employee has been regularized then same benefit and
same treatment has to be given to all the similarly situated employees
across the board.
18. In the case of Dharam Singh and others v. State of U.P. and
another, (Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held as under:-
"18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-hocism"
thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments
must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster
rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with
evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned
posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the
record should show what alternatives were considered, why
similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the
chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution
of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged
insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that
should inform every decision affecting those who keep public
offices running.
20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because,
case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met
with fresh technicalities, rolling "reconsiderations," and
administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those
who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we
have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter
directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed
timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer,
the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise
its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for
lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and
spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but
rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and
dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here
comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56122
9 WP-20194-2024
subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance,
is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and
to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in
administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under
Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India."
19. Further in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India and others , reported
i n 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, the Hon'ble Apex Court while
distinguishing the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi ,
reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 has held that the aforesaid judgment cannot
be weaponized against those employees who have put in long years of
service with State Government and their services had been invaluable for
the State. In the said case, it has been held as under:-
"26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the
practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to
constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often
misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving
employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and
"irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular
appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served
continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for
regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the
judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to
indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their
appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural
formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma
Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for
temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit
acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This
selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively
weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable
services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for
government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable
employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended
periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's
functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also
exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56122
10 WP-20194-2024
morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions
can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and
uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to
embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a
positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to
the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.
28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are
allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal
are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following
extent:
i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed;
ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their
services regularised forthwith. However, the appellants shall not be
entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they
have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services
for the said period and the same would be counted for their post-
retiral benefits.
20. In the case of the State of Gujarat and others vs. Talsibhai
Dhanjibhai Patel, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 187, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held as under:-
"It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the
respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend
that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not
entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be
permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services
continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an
employee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall not be
eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State,
the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand."
21. Not only above, but on ground of parity with Nirpat Singh, the
petitioners have made out a case for indulgence of this Court.
22. Consequently, the impugned orders in all the cases are set aside.
The petitioners are held entitled to be regularized in their respective posts
from the date of first appointment as was done in the case of Nirpat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56122
11 WP-20194-2024
Singh.
23. Let final pension and other retiral benefits of retired petitioners be
settled and paid to those petitioners within 90 days. It is made clear that
if any anticipatory pension has been drawn by the petitioners, the same
shall be adjustable from the arrears of pension.
24. The petitions are allowed and disposed of in the above terms
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
psm
