Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 145 (MP)

MUKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF M. P.

2000-02-15

S.P.SRIVASTAVA

body2000
S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government advocate representing the respondent No. 1 on advance notice. ( 2 ) THE petitioner feels aggrieved by the order dated January 10, 2000 issued by the state Government and the alleged order claimed to have been passed in the proforma, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure p-10, which the petitioner asserts has not been served upon him. ( 3 ) IT has been asserted by the petitioner that he had been appointed as employee on July 17, 1991 and has been working continuously on the said post which has now been redesignated as Assistant Sub-Inspector. It is claimed that some posts of Assistant sub-Inspector are still lying vacant but pursuant to the direction issued by the State Government the services of the petitioner are being dispensed with. It is also asserted that on a previous occasion he had approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 1496/1994, (MM No. 160 of 1994) which had been finally disposed of by an order passed by the learned single Judge dated September 30, 1994 for the reasons given in Writ Petition No. 956 of 1990, mahesh Datt Sharma and another v. Krishi upaj Mandi Samiti, Morena, decided on september 23, 1994, providing as under:" (I) the question whether a worker is seasonal or not would be decided by the government. Till then status quo be maintained; (ii) the fact that appointment was not only, (sic) the competent authority would not be relevant; (iii) the provisions of Section 25-F of the act would be applicable to a seasonal worker; and (iv) in case any of the petitioners. is not in the employment of the samiti, the samiti would be free to pass such orders as facts and circumstances warrant. is not in the employment of the samiti, the samiti would be free to pass such orders as facts and circumstances warrant. Sd/-T. S. DOABIA" ( 4 ) THE decision of the learned single Judge in the case of Mahesh Datt Sharma (supra) was sought to be challenged in a Letters Patent appeal, being L. P. A. No. 84 of 1994, which was finally decided on April 2, 1998 whereunder the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the appeal with a further direction to the Government to take decision on the points indicated in the order of the learned single judge after noticing both the parties within a period of four months from the date of the communication of the said order in accordance with law. The cross-objections preferred by the samiti were also disposed of in view of the above order and time allowed to the government for taking a decision. ( 5 ) THE petitioner asserts that he submitted an application on June 19, 1998 addressed to the State Government and the Director of the madhya Pradesh Mandi, praying that necessary action be taken and orders passed complying with the directions of this Court. A copy of the said application is claimed to have been sent to sachiv, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Morena under registered post but the copy thereof addressed to the Director was sent under certificate of posting. The documents filed on record, however, indicate that the copy of the said application was sent to the Sachiv, Krishi vibhag Mantralaya, Ballabh Bhavan, Bhopal under the registered post but the copy meant for the Sanchalak and the Sachiv, Krishi Upaj mandi Samiti, were sent only under certificate of posting. ( 6 ) THE assertion of the petitioner is that in spite of having received the said application the state Government has not taken any decision so far pursuant to the aforesaid directions of this Court. However, without considering the case of the petitioner as directed, the State government had issued the order dated december 1, 1997 requiring all the local authorities (Nagariya Nikay) to dispense with the services of its employees who had been engaged on daily wage basis subsequent to december 31, 1988. However, without considering the case of the petitioner as directed, the State government had issued the order dated december 1, 1997 requiring all the local authorities (Nagariya Nikay) to dispense with the services of its employees who had been engaged on daily wage basis subsequent to december 31, 1988. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions the Sanchalak Mandi/prabandh sanchalak, Madhya Pradesh Rajya Krishi vipanan Board, Bhopal had issued the order dated January 10, 2000 for dispensing with services of all such employees engaged on daily wage basis. Thereafter, the Krishi Upaj Mandi samiti, Morena issued a show-cause notice dated January 14, 2000 calling upon the petitioner to present his case and appear for that purpose before the Bhar-Sadhak Adhikari, krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Morena, on January 21, 2000. ( 7 ) THE petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice but without considering his case the Samiti had taken the impugned action. It has further been asserted that the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti is an industry and therefore the provisions of industrial Disputes Act and Standard Standing orders are applicable to its employees. Since the petitioner has completed 240 days of service in each calendar year on a sanctioned post, he attained the status of a regular employee hence his services could not be terminated. It is also asserted that the impugned action was manifestly illegal as it had been taken without considering the case/claim of the petitioner in terms of the directions of this Court. ( 8 ) A perusal of the original order passed in Writ Petition No. 1496 of 1994 (MM No. 160 of 1994) referred to hereinabpve, a true copy of which has been annexed with the Writ petition, indicates that the petitioner is continuing to be in service as a daily wager only in view of the interim order dated August 12, 1994 passed in his favour requiring the respondents to maintain the status quo with regard to services. The aforesaid interim order is being reproduced below:". . . . . . . NOTICE of admission for August 19, 1994. Till then status quo be maintained with regard to services. Sd. /- T. S. DOABIA 12-8-1994. "the aforesaid order was continued till further orders on August 19, 1994, and lapsed with the final order passed in the writ petition. The aforesaid interim order is being reproduced below:". . . . . . . NOTICE of admission for August 19, 1994. Till then status quo be maintained with regard to services. Sd. /- T. S. DOABIA 12-8-1994. "the aforesaid order was continued till further orders on August 19, 1994, and lapsed with the final order passed in the writ petition. ( 9 ) IN any view of the matter it is not disputed that the State Government has in fact passed an order as is referred to in the order issued by the Sanchalak Mandi/prabandh sanchalak dated January 10, 2000. This order of the State Government dated December 1, 1997 has not been annexed along with the writ petition. The copy of the order passed by this court, Annexure P-3, does not indicate that the petitioner had impleaded the State Government as a party-respondent in the writ petition. Even a perusal of the order passed by the Division bench which has been filed as Annexure P-4 does not indicate that the State Government had been impleaded as a party-respondent in the appeal, though it has been directed in the order passed by the Division Bench that the copy of the said order be furnished to Shri R. A. Roman, learned Additional Advocate General. The appeal had been dismissed thereby maintaining the order of the learned single judge in the proceedings before whom the petitioner had not chosen to implead the State government as a Party-respondent. ( 10 ) IT may further be noticed that although in paragraph 5. 13 of the writ petition it has been asserted that the petitioner had filed a Letters patent Appeal being L. P. A. No. 101/1994 but the copy of that memo of appeal has not been filed, to indicate that the State Government had been impleaded by him in the appeal. In paragraph 5. 15 of the writ petition it has been stated that an application dated June 19, 1998, referred to hereinabove, had been sent to the secretary, Agriculture Department by registered post. The Judgment of the learned single Judge had been passed on September 30, 1994 and the appeal had been dismissed on april 2, 1998. In paragraph 5. 15 of the writ petition it has been stated that an application dated June 19, 1998, referred to hereinabove, had been sent to the secretary, Agriculture Department by registered post. The Judgment of the learned single Judge had been passed on September 30, 1994 and the appeal had been dismissed on april 2, 1998. There is nothing to indicate that there was any stay order passed in the appeal preventing the petitioner to send such an application immediately after the passing of the order dated September 30, 1994 passed by the learned single Judge. Even though the State government had not been impleaded in the writ petition as a party-respondent there is nothing to indicate that the copy of the order passed by the learned single Judge was communicated to the State Government for compliance. The state Government cannot be faulted on account of the inaction on the part of the petitioner. ( 11 ) IN any view of the matter the State government did take a decision to dispense with the services of all the daily wage employees engaged subsequent to the cut-off date which was fixed being December 31, 1988 excepting those of the specified category (Safai karmachari ). ( 12 ) IN the aforesaid factual matrix the petitioner cannot derive any advantage at this stage out of the directions sought to be relied upon especially when he had chosen not to implead the State Government as a party-respondent in the writ petition and had taken no step to get the directions of the learned single Judge communicated to the concerned authority and further taken no step to initiate any proceedings to get the directions enforced by moving this Court within the time limit as stipulated under the provisions of Contempt of courts Act which has been allowed to lapse. Even the opportunity provided under the appellate order was not availed of and no step was taken to initiate any proceedings to enforce the directions within the time prescribed. ( 13 ) I had an occasion to consider in detail a similar question as involved in this writ petition in the case of Leeladhar v. State of m. P. and others, Writ Petition No. 292 of 2000, decided today 2000 (1) MPLJ 622 . The ratio of the aforesaid decision stands squarely attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The ratio of the aforesaid decision stands squarely attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ( 14 ) IN view of the aforesaid conclusions and for the reasons indicated in the decision in the case of Leeladhar (supra), this Court declines to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the constitution of India leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the statutory alternative remedy for the redressal of his grievances, if any. ( 15 ) THE writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. .