Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dipendra Ku. Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51594
1 WP-4840-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 13th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4840 of 2023
DIPENDRA KU. PANDEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Kumar Pandey - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Akshat Arjaria - Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
ORDER
By way of present Petition, the Petitioners have sought the relief of
regularization in service at par with the Private Respondents who are stated
to be the juniors.
2. The case of the Petitioners is that the respondent/Municipal
Corporation has framed a consolidated seniority list of Daily rated
employees and in the said list, in Public Works Section, the names of
Petitioners are at S.No.253, 113 and 249 whereas the names of Respondents
No.4 and 5 are at S.No.260 and 261 despite which the respondents No.4 and
5 have been granted the benefit of regularization to the post of Time Keeper
vide Order Annexure P-4 issued in the year 2022 whereas the Petitioners
have been left out for such consideration.
3. The respondents have contested the said case of the Petitioners on
the ground that the representation of the Petitioners has been turned down
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51594
2 WP-4840-2023
vide Order Annexure R-2 dated 19.01.2024 whereby it has been decided by
the Corporation that the regularization shall be carried out only as per the
seniority of the employees and since the sufficient number of vacant posts
are not available, therefore, the Petitioners have not been regularised. It is
further contended that the private respondents have been regularized only in
compliance of Order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.329/2015 and
bunch of cases whereby this Court had directed the said private respondents
to be given the benefit of permanent Time keeper as these persons had
approached the Labour Court and the Labour Court at some very early point
of time had directed their classification and since these Petitioners have
never approached the Labour Court and there was no Order of classification
in favour of these Petitioners therefore, these Petitioners have not been
regularized at par with private respondents.
4. Upon hearing the rival contentions, it is seen that the only difference
between the case of the Petitioners and that of the private respondents is that
the private respondents had at some point of time, approached the Labour
Court and got an Order of permanent classification whereas the Petitioners
did not approach the Labour Court and there is no such Order in their favour.
5. However, in the reply, nothing has been placed on record that
except the Petitioners having not approached the Labour Court, there is any
other difference between the cases of the Petitioners and the private
respondents who had approached the Labour Court and whether the
contention of the Petitioners that they are senior to private respondents in
daily rated service and performing the same nature of duties, is not correct.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51594
3 WP-4840-2023
6. It is settled in law that the model employer is bound to maintain
parity in the matter of employment and merely because one junior
approaches the Labour Court, then the seniors cannot be denied the same
benefits, if they are at par.
7. In Kiran Vasudev Vs. Gwalior Development Authority and Others
2021 SCC Online SC 3200, it has been held as under:-
"11. Heaving heard learned counsel for the parties, this
Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment to
the extent that it held the direction cannot be issued for
the creation of a post including a supernumerary post is
warranted. Nevertheless equally GDA as an authority
and bound by the provision of Article 14 of the
Constitution could not have permitted discrimination
against one of its employees given that other
employees-who were concededly juniors to the
appellant : were regularized pursuant to the order of
Labour Court. The award was complied with, without
demur."
8. Further, in the case of " State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava
reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 , it has been held as under:-
22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of
employees is given relief by the court, all other
identically situated persons need to be treated alike by
extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to
discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be
applied in service matters more emphatically as the
service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time
to time postulates that all similarly situated persons
should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule
would be that merely because other similarly situated
persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not
to be treated differently."
9. In State of Karnataka & Others Vs C. Lalitha reported in (2006) 2
SCC 747, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51594
4 WP-4840-2023
"29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from
time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated
should be treated similarly. Only because one person
has approached the court that would not mean that
persons similarly situated should be treated differently.
It is furthermore well settled that the question of
seniority should be governed by the rules. It may be true
that this Court took notice of the subsequent events,
namely, that in the meantime she had also been
promoted as Assistant Commissioner which was a
Category I post but the direction to create a
supernumerary post to adjust her must be held to have
been issued only with a view to accommodate her
therein as otherwise she might have been reverted and
not for the purpose of conferring a benefit to which she
was not otherwise entitled to."
10. Therefore, it is clear that in the aforesaid cases, it has been
conclusively decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court that it is the duty of the
Employer to maintain parity between its own employees belonging to the
same cadre and are similarly situated.
11. Consequently, the present Petition is allowed. The Respondent
No.2 is directed to make consideration of the case of Petitioners for
regularization at par with respondents No.4 and 5 and if the petitioners are
performin same nature of duties, and there is no difference between the case
of the Petitioners and the case of the Respondents No.4 and 5 except the
Petitioners not having approached the Labour Court, then the same benefits
shall be granted to the Petitioners at par with the respondents No.4 and 5.
12. It is made clear that if the posts are vacant then regularization shall
be made on the vacant posts. In the event, posts are not vacant then, in order
to maintain parity with the juniors, the respondents shall be under obligation
to create supernumerary posts for regularizing the Petitioners so as to bring
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51594
5 WP-4840-2023
them at par with their juniors The impugned Order Annexure P-7 dated
19.01.2024 is set aside.
13. Let necessary action in compliance of the said Order be completed
within 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this Order.
14. Accordingly, the Petition is disposed off.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni
