[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Pratap Singh vs Union Of India on 25 March, 2026
1 WP-8919-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
WP No. 8919 of 2026
(VIJAY PRATAP SINGH AND OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS )
Dated : 25-03-2026
Mr. Alok Katare - Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Praveen Kumar Newaskar - Deputy Solicitor General for Union of
India.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra - Advocate for respondents no. 2 & 3.
The petitioners, in this petition, are aggrieved by the communication
dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure P/1) issued by Scientist 'G', Head (Agromet
Advisory Services Division), Government of India, Ministry of Earth
Sciences, India Meteorological Department, New Delhi, to the Deputy
Director General (Agrl. Extn.), Krishi Anusandhan Bhawan, ICAR, New
Delhi, informing that the approved duration of the GKMS project is five
years, which will end by the end of March, 2026. It is further stated in the
said communication that the manpower engaged under the GKMS Scheme
shall stand discontinued in March, 2026, and no financial commitment shall
be undertaken beyond the approved project period.
2. As per the case set up in the writ petition, it appears that the
Government of India entrusted the work of the weather observing system and
development of Gramin Krishi Mausam Seva (GKMS) to the India
Meteorological Department (IMD). The IMD, in turn, set up around 130
Agro Meteorological Field Units (AFMU). It is stated that the AFMUs are
situated in State Agricultural Universities, ICAR centres, and other
2 WP-8919-2026
institutions.
3. It is further averred in the petition that the IMD established District
Agromet Units (DAMU) in 530 districts, in addition to the already operating
130 AFMUs. An MOU was entered into between IMD and ICAR. Under the
said MOU, an advertisement was issued to engage Research
Associates/Subject Matter Specialists.
4. From the appointment orders collectively filed as Annexure P/4, it is
gathered that the petitioners were appointed as Research Associates in
DAMU at Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Shivpuri. Clause 4 of the appointment
order provides that "the position is purely on a temporary basis and is filled
on a contractual basis up to 31.03.2020." Further, Clause 5 thereof provides
that "the selected candidate shall have no right or claim for regular
appointment at this V.V., as the appointments are co-terminus with the
project." The DAMU has thus been wound up and, accordingly, the services
of the petitioners are liable to be dispensed with.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that even
though DAMU has been wound up, the work being discharged by the
petitioners still exists, inasmuch as IMD would be undertaking the same
work through 130 zonal units in collaboration with KVKs. It is his
submission that the petitioners have already gained experience in the work
and, therefore, should be engaged with the zonal units. He further submitted
that in the year 2024 also, the petitioners' services were sought to be
dispensed with, and they approached this Court by filing W.P. No.
6630/2024 and W.P. No. 10083/2024. There is an interim order operating
3 WP-8919-2026
and, therefore, on this ground also, the respondents cannot dispense with the
petitioners' services.
6. On the other hand, Shri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos. 2 and 3, has filed a reply and opposes the prayer for interim
relief. As per his submission, the petitioners' engagement was co-terminus
with DAMU and, since DAMU has been wound up, they cannot claim
continuity of service.
7. Mr. Praveen Kumar Newaskar, learned ASG appearing for
respondent No. 1, also adopts the arguments of Shri Mishra and opposes the
prayer for interim relief.
8. Considering the fact that DAMU has been wound up and the
petitioners' engagement was co-terminus with DAMU, the petitioners cannot
be allowed to continue in service by way of an interim order. Further, in
W.P. No. 6630/2024, this Court passed the following order on 15.04.2024:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was
appointed as Assistant Director General Agromet Observer at
Krishi Vigyan Kendra under GKMS Scheme vide order dated
24.8.2019. The services of petitioner was coterminous in GKMS
Scheme. Despite continuity of GKMS Scheme, the services of the
petitioner has been directed to be terminated w.e.f. 29.2.2024, and
as per the document filed along with petition, it appears that
scheme of District Agromet Units under Gramin Krishi Mausam
Seva will continue till 29.2.2024. However, a letter dated
17.1.2024 is also placed on record which reflects that scheme will
be continued till end of current financial year 2023-2024. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the coordinate Benches
while dealing with the similar issue granted interim relief to
petitioners therein in W.P.No.4610/2024 (Dharmendra Agase &
4 WP-8919-2026
Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.) by order dated 27.2.2024 and in
W.P.No.4426/2024 (Sandeep Kumar Chandravanshi Vs. Union of
India & Ors.) by order dated 29.2.2024 and he prays for similar
relief in the present petition.
Learned Deputy Solicitor General for the Union of India opposed
the prayer, however, fairly conceded that Coordinate Benches
have granted interim relief in similar petitions.
For the purpose of maintaining parity, it is directed that as an
interim measure, petitioner be not disturbed till 30.4.2024 and be
permitted to continue.
In the mean while, reply be filed on behalf of respondents in this
matter.
List this matter on 30.04.2024."
9. It is thus seen that the interim order was passed to continue the
petitioners only till the end of April, 2024. It is also gathered that the
petitioner is stated to be an employee of GKMS in the aforesaid order,
whereas, as per the appointment order, he was employed by DAMU. A
similar interim order was passed in W.P. No. 10083/2024 on 16.04.2024.
The said interim order was continued without further deliberation on the
issue of continuance of the petitioners, and the petitions are pending.
However, the interim order was only to the effect that the petitioners shall be
allowed to continue till April, 2024.
10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not propose to pass any
interim order at this stage. However, respondent No. 1/IMD is directed to
come up with a specific stand stating whether the petitioners can be
accommodated at any other place, keeping in view their work experience. It
shall also make a specific averment as to whether the work of DAMU is
5 WP-8919-2026
being carried out through any other agency. In other words, whether others
are being engaged to carry out the work being done by the petitioners.
11. Considering the fact that the petitioners shall be rendered jobless
after March, 2026, respondent No. 1 is required to file its response at the
earliest possible time. Four weeks' time is, therefore, granted for the said
purpose.
12. List this case in the first week of May, 2026.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
bj/-
