[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Nathu Bodade vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 March, 2026
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24202
1 WP-11745-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 24th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 11745 of 2023
SUNIL NATHU BODADE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arpan Pawar - Senior Advocate with Shri Chiranjeev Sharma -
Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Pramod Kumar Chaurasia - Government Advocate for State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 11451 of 2021
DASHRATH RAMCHANDRA SONI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arpan Pawar - Senior Advocate with Shri Chiranjeev Sharma - Advocate for
petitioners.
Shri Pramod Kumar Chaurasia - Government Advocate for State.
WRIT PETITION No. 1700 of 2022
SANJAY GAWAI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arpan Pawar - Senior Advocate with Shri Chiranjeev Sharma - Advocate for
petitioners.
Shri Pramod Kumar Chaurasia - Government Advocate for State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANURAG SONI
Signing time: 25-03-2026
11:02:46
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24202
2 WP-11745-2023
WRIT PETITION No. 17365 of 2022
BANDU NAMDEO KOLI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arpan Pawar - Senior Advocate with Shri Chiranjeev Sharma - Advocate for
petitioner.
Shri Pramod Kumar Chaurasia - Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of
India making a prayer to regularize him as Class-IV employee.
2. Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that State
Government from time to time has issued various circulars issuing direction
not to do fresh recruitment until and unless regularization of employees who
are working as daily wager takes place. It is submitted that for said reason
meetings of Scrutiny Committee is to be conducted twice in a year. Case of
petitioner could not be sent by authorities before Scrutiny Committee,
therefore, no orders could be passed for regularization of petitioner. Later on
authority considering regularization of petitioner dismissed his case on
ground that last date for considering the case for regularization was
07/10/2017. Said period has lapsed as cut of date is over, therefore, cases of
petitioner for regularization could not be considered. It is submitted that in
other Districts and places regularization has been done. In those cases timely
proposals were sent for regularization before Scrutiny Committee. Failure
was on part of respondents and they cannot take advantage of their own
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24202
3 WP-11745-2023
mistake in not examining case of petitioner in time. Case of petitioner is to
be scrutinized and he is to be regularized if his case is found to be fit.
3. Government Advocate appearing for State placed reliance on the
order which has been passed by respondents. It is submitted that cut of date
of 07/10/2017 was over, therefore, cases were not considered.
4. Heard counsel for the parties.
5. On going through facts and circumstances of the case and also
taking into account reply filed by respondents, it is found that Department is
making blame on other authorities in not sending the proposal in time.
Negligence or delay was on part of respondents, for which petitioner cannot
be penalized.
6. In view of same, Writ Petition filed by petitioner is allowed.
Impugned order is quashed. Respondents are directed to conduct a fresh
scrutiny considering the case of petitioner for regularization. If case of
petitioner is found fit in accordance with Kanistha Seva (Sanyukta Arhata)
Pariksha Niyam, 2013, then petitioner should be considered for
regularization and benefit be extended to him from the date when he is found
eligible.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
as
