Ram Lal Kewat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

21.09.2012.

Ms.Neelam Goel for the petitioner.

Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice.

Seeking regularization of the petitioner with effect from the initial date of appointment and contending that regularization has been granted prospectively whereas in the case of various other employees retrospective regularization with effect from the initial date of appointment has been granted, this writ petition has been filed.

Petitioner was appointed in the irrigation department as a daily wage employee on the post of Chowkidar.

It is stated in the writ petition that petitioner was appointed in the year 1979, but in the documents filed by the petitioner alongwith the writ petition – Annexure P/1, the date of appointment of the petitioner is indicated to be in the year 1981.

Be it as it may be, when the petitioner had worked for a certain period of time and when the services of the petitioner were not regularized and when the claim of all the daily wage employees, who were working prior to 31.12.1987 were regularized, petitioner filed an application before the MP State Administrative Tribunal being O.A.No.3402/2000.

After winding up of the Tribunal matter stood transferred to this Court and was registered as W.P.No.15506/2003.

A Bench of this Court vide order-dated 11.12.2003 – Annexure P/1 disposed of the writ petition directing the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in 2 accordance to the circulars and policies of the State Government and after taking note of the benefit granted to junior employees, who have been regularized, decide the claim of the petitioner.

In accordance to the same, petitioner’s services have been regularized vide order – Annexure P/2 and the regularization has been made effective from 15.9.2004.

It is pointed out by the petitioner that regularization to him from the initial date of appointment is denied.

Pointing out the benefits granted to one Shri Mohan Singh and Shri Kunj Bihari, who have been granted regularization from the initial date of their appointment, petitioner seeks similar benefit.

Learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to certain orders passed and the documents available on record and submitted that in the case of Shri Mohan Singh, Shri Kunj Bihari and Shri Anandram Gond, they were appointed in the year 1981, 1980 and 1982 respectively, and vide orders – Annexures P/3 and P/4, they have been regularized retrospectively with effect from the date of their initial appointment whereas in the case of the petitioner no such benefit is granted.

Respondents have filed their return and it is only pointed out by them that petitioner has been regularized and the contention of the petitioner that Shri Mohan Singh and Shri Kunj Bihari are juniors to him have been denied.

However, the return filed by the respondents is silent with regard to the averments made by the petitioner in ground 6(a) of the writ petition, particularly with regard to regularization of these 3 employees retrospectively with effect from their initial date of appointment.

Keeping in view the aforesaid, for the present respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for regularization retrospectively from the initial date of appointment and after taking note of the benefits, if any, granted to similarly situated employees as indicated herein, pass an order with regard to regularization of the petitioner retrospectively from the date claimed by a speaking order, within a period of three months.

With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-