[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh State Agricultural ... vs Vimal Kumar Namdeo on 23 January, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6774
1 RP-1763-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 23rd OF JANUARY, 2026
REVIEW PETITION No. 1763 of 2025
MADHYA PRADESH STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING
BOARD AND OTHERS
Versus
VIMAL KUMAR NAMDEO
Appearance:
Shri Pranay Choubey, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Manoj Kumar Chansauriya,, Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Heard on I.A.No.26203/2025, an application for condonation of
delay.
On due consideration, I.A.No.26203/2025 is allowed. Delay of
114 days in filing the Review Petition is hereby condoned.
Learned counsel for the Review Petitioner submits that Review
Petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 01.05.2025, passed by Hon'ble
Division Bench in W.A.No.2362 of 2023, whereby Hon'ble Division
Bench has allowed the claim of Vimal Kumar Namdeo (respondent
herein) for regularisation w.e.f. 20.02.2003, when his juniors were
regularised.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6774
2 RP-1763-2025
Shri Pranay Choubey, learned counsel for petitioners submits that
firstly, respondent-Vimal Kumar Namdeo had not challenged the order
of regularisation of his juniors and, secondly, in the year 2008, Vimal
Kumar Namdeo, too was regularised, therefore, there was no occasion
for him to file writ petition claiming various reliefs.
It is also submitted that in fact Screening Committee which was
constituted to consider names of eligible persons for regularisation in the
year 2003, had given a note that Vimal Kumar Namdeo was negligent in
depositing Mandi Fees and, therefore, it is submitted that there being
cogent ground for not considering the case of the respondent herein
Vimal Kumar Namdeo for regularisation, there was no occasion for
Division Bench to permit him reliefs from a back date.
It is also submitted that what is mentioned in the impugned order
in para 15, is not correct, because there will be no recurring cause of
action.
Shri Manoj Kumar Chansauriya, learned counsel for the
respondent supports the impugned order.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, when we requested
Shri Pranay Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner to point out that
Departmental Promotion Committee/Screening Committee, which had
considered cases of similarly situated employees in the year 2003 for
regularisation, had made any prescription that an act of negligence will
be a disqualification for regularisation, he fairly submits that there is no
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6774
3 RP-1763-2025
such material available on record.
When we asked Shri Choubey, learned counsel that if that was not
the criteria, then how the respondent could have been left out when
others who are similarly situated, were given benefit of regularisation,
then it is pointed out that since he was regularised in the year 2008, no
loss has been caused to him.
However, this aspect of negligence has been dealt with by the
Hon'ble Coordinate Bench in great detail in para 10 of the impugned
order.
As far as limitation is concerned, Hon'ble Apex Court in
M.R.Gupta Vs. Union of India and others [(1995) 5 SCC 628], has held
that on continuing wrong gives rise to a recurring cause of action every
month on the occasion of payment of salary. This aspect has been dealt
with by Hon'ble Coordinate Bench in paras 13 & 14 of the impugned
order, referring to judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of
Karnataka Vs. C. Lalitha [(2006) 2 SCC 747] and State of U.P. Vs.
Arvind Kumar Shrivastava [(2015) 1 SCC 347] and, therefore, second
argument put-forth by Shri Pranay Choubey, learned counsel too has no
justification.
When tested, then a model employer cannot discriminate between
same set of employees on those grounds which were not to be taken into
consideration at the time of regularisation. Even otherwise, back wages
have been granted only for last three years from the date of filing of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6774
4 RP-1763-2025
petition and that way equity has been balanced in our opinion.
When these aspects are taken into consideration, then State or its
instrumentalities being a model employer, their act has been rightly dealt
with by Hon'ble Coordinate Bench, which does not call for any
interference.
Accordingly, Review Petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE JUDGE
A.Praj.
