Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sitaram Koli vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27742
1 WP-5899-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 31st OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 5899 of 2025
SITARAM KOLI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Alok Bandhu Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Sohit Mishra - Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Sankalp Sharma- Advocate for the respondents no.3 to 5.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 5902 of 2025
RAJ KUMAR JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Alok Bandhu Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Sohit Mishra - Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Sankalp Sharma- Advocate for the respondents no.3 to 5.
ORDER
The petitioners have filed these writ petitions praying for a direction to
the respondents to regularize their service on the post of Line Helper
alongwith all consequential benefits attached to the regular post.
[2]. For purposes of convenience, the facts are taken from W.P.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27742
2 WP-5899-2025
No.5899 of 2025 filed by Sitaram Koli and others.
[3]. The petitioners were initially engaged on Muster Roll as daily
wagers by Gramin Vidyut Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Pichhore, District
Shivpuri (in short "the Society") in the year 1988-89. It is the case of the
petitioners that on completion of 05 years, the Society appointed them on the
post of Line Helper vide order, dated 02.08.1994/06.02.1999, (Annexure P/1
& P/1-A). A perusal of these orders show that the appointment of the
petitioners were made temporarily on wages fixed by Collector for a period
of three months. The petitioners have further averred that by order, dated
31.07.1999, their services were regularized by the Society on the post of
Line Helper in regular pay-scale of 290-435. However, immediately within
24 days, the order of regularization was cancelled by the order passed by
Society on 24.08.1999 (Annexure P/3). The petitioner, therefore, continued
to work temporarily on daily wages.
[4]. The Govt. of Madhya Pradesh framed a policy for conferring
benefit of Sthaikarmi on the persons working on daily wages vide circular,
dated 07.10.2016. The respondent-Company adopted the said policy vide
order, dated 27.05.2018. Consequently, the petitioners were conferred status
o f Sthaikarmi as unskilled worker vide order, dated 21.07.2018, (Annexure
P/4). Pertinently, this benefit was conferred on them w.e.f. 01.09.2017. The
petitioners are thus continuing as such ever since.
[5]. The petitioners claim that since they have been working against
vacant posts of Line Helper right from 1988-89, they are required to be
regularized on the said posts in view of the order passed by Apex Court in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27742
3 WP-5899-2025
the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006)4
SCC 1. The petitioners' counsel also relied upon the order passed by Apex
Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC
Online SC 3826. He submitted that the petitioners have been continuously
working on the post of Line Helper for more than three decades that shows
that the nature of their work is permanent. It is his submission that the
respondent-Company erred in not considering the petitioners for
regularization of their services in view of paragraph-53 of Uma Devi (supra).
He thus submitted that the suitable directions need to be issued to the
respondents for considering the petitioners for regularization of their services
on the post of Line Helper.
[6]. On the other hand, respondents' counsel refuted the claim raised
by petitioners and submitted that the petitioners have already been granted
benefit under the policy, dated 07.10.2016, and, therefore, they cannot claim
regularization. He also submitted that the petitioners' engagement was on
daily wages without following any recruitment process. Relying upon
paragraph-5 & 11 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
Uma Devi (supra), it is his submission that the petitioners' appointments
since are illegal, they cannot be considered for regularization of their
services. He also submitted that the petitioners do not get any benefit from
the judgment rendered by Apex Court in the case of Jaggo (supra) inasmuch
as the petitioners have already been granted benefit under the policy framed
for daily wagers. He submitted that the Apex Court granted relief in the case
o f Jaggo (supra) only because it was found that the petitioner therein was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27742
4 WP-5899-2025
unfairly denied regularization despite fulfilling all necessary conditions. The
learned counsel placed reliance upon Apex Court judgment in the case of
Uma Devi (supra) and submitted that the regularization of daily wagers is
not permissible dehors the applicable recruitment rules, policies and the
availability of sanctioned posts. He also submitted that since the petitioners
have accepted the benefit of Sthaikarmi without any protest they are now
stopped from seeking further relief of regularization under different
framework. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon Coordinate Bench
judgment rendered in the case of Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. The State of M.P.
& Ors. (W.P. No.1676 of 2025) to say that after conferral of benefit of
Sthaikarmi, the petitioners are not entitled to further benefit of regularization.
He thus prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
[7]. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
[8]. The facts in these cases are not much in dispute. The petitioners
were initially engaged on daily wages by the Society. The order of
regularization was passed in their favour by the Society which was later on
canceled by the Society. Thus, the petitioners continued to work as daily
wager from 1988-89 under the Society. However, they are later on conferred
with status of Sthaikarmi by the respondent-Company.
[9]. It is thus seen that the initial engagement of the petitioners was by
the Society and not by the respondent-Company. It is not clear from the
records as to when the petitioners started working under the Company.
However, from order, dated 21.07.2018, (Annexure P/6), it is clear that w.e.f.
01.09.2017, they have been working under respondent-Company.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27742
5 WP-5899-2025
[10]. The learned counsel for the petitioners, has placed heavy reliance
upon the judgment rendered by Apex Court in the case of Jaggo (supra),
however, if the facts of the said case are seen, it becomes evident that the
petitioner in that case was working for more than a decade on daily wages
without any benefit under any policy. As seen from observations made in
para-17 of the judgment, the Apex Court has observed that the argument
regarding lack of educational qualification raised by the employer was found
to be untenable in the context of that case inasmuch as the nature of duties of
the petitioner does not inherently mandate formal educational requisites. The
petitioner therein was working as Sthaikarmi. The Apex Court also found
that the persons who were illiterate and were subsequently engaged were
already granted benefit of regularization. In that context, the Supreme Court
has directed for reinstatement of the petitioner and regularization of her
services.
[11]. On the other hand, if the facts of the present case are seen, the
petitioners are working as Line Helper which requires necessary educational
qualification as also training for discharging the work of the said post. The
petitioners' claim that they have already been imparted training for working
on the post. It is also seen that the petitioners have already been conferred
benefit under the policy dated 07.10.2016. Thus, it is not a case that the
petitioners have been engaged temporarily all through for last about three
decade. They have been granted benefit under the policy framed for such
persons. Therefore, the petitioners are not at par with the appellant before
Apex Court. They, therefore, do not get any help from the judgment rendered
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27742
6 WP-5899-2025
by Apex Court in the case of Jaggo (supra).
[12]. Another important aspect to be looked into in this case is the
provisions of policy framed by General Administration Department of
Government of Madhya Pradesh vide circular, dated 07.10.2016. From the
order, dated 21.07.2018, (Annexure P/6), it is gathered that the said policy
has been adopted by respondent-Company vide order, dated 22.05.2018.
Thus, it is not in dispute that the policy, dated 07.10.2016, is applicable to
the petitioners. More so, they have been granted the benefit of Sthaikarmi
under the said policy.
[13]. If the provisions of the policy, dated 07.10.2016, are scanned, it
is gathered that the policy initially provides for conferring benefit of
Sthaikarmi. However, the next stage provided in the scheme is for
consideration of the persons who have been conferred with Sthaikarmi
benefits, for purposes of regularization on available posts. This is evident
from paragraph-2 of the policy which reads as under;
"2. चतुथ ण े ी के र िनयिमत पद पर ाथिमकता के आधार पर
िनयु हे तु एक योजना बनाई गई है जो संल न प रिश - 'अ' पर है
इस योजना के या वयन हे तु म य दे श किन सेवा (संयु
अहता) िनयम, 2013 के िनयम-7 म व णत समूह-6 म चतुथ ण े ी
क चयन या को एक वष के िलए थिगत क जाती है ।"
[ 1 4 ] . Thus, Annexure 'अ' attached to the policy prescribes the
procedure for taking steps for regularization of Sthaikarmis. If the facts of
this case are seen, even though the petitioners have been given benefit of
Sthaikarmi, however, no steps have been taken for their consideration for
regularization as per Clause-2 of policy. It is required to be clarified here that
the policy, dated 07.10.2016, has been adopted as it is by the respondent-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27742
7 WP-5899-2025
Company. However, while implementing the same, the company would be
required to suitably modify the provisions like constitution of Committee for
purposes of considering the cases for regularization etc.
[15]. In view of the aforesaid, since admittedly the respondent-
Company has adopted the policy, dated 07.10.2016, and further that the
petitioners have been granted initial benefit under policy by conferring
benefit of Sthaikarmi to them, the respondents are now required to consider
the petitioners for purposes of regularization on available posts as per
Annexure 'अ' of the policy.
[ 1 6 ] . The petitions are accordingly, disposed of directing the
respondents to take steps for considering the petitioners as also other
similarly situated employees for purposes of regularization of their services
on the available posts as per Annexure 'अ' of the policy, dated 07.10.2016. It
is clarified here that the direction to consider cases of petitioners for
regularization would not mean ignoring the claim of other suitable persons
for such benefit. In other words, the respondents shall consider the cases of
all suitable Sthaikarmis for purposes of regularization in accordance with the
provisions of policy, dated 07.10.2016, particularly Annexure 'अ' of the
policy.
[17]. Let needful be done by the respondents as aforesaid within a
period of 90 days from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.
[18]. With the aforesaid observations, the petitions are disposed of.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27742
8 WP-5899-2025
JUDGE
vpn/-
