Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 329 (MP)

Ravi Prakash Gupta v. State of M. P.

2005-03-02

RAJENDRA MENON

body2005
JUDGMENT Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by inaction on the part of the respondents' in not considering his claim for regularization in the post of Sub-Engineer, whereas Vishambharsingh Bhadoriya, who is junior to the petitioner, has been regularized. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as educated labour in the department on 1.5.1988, thereafter continued to work on various dates, but still he is working as daily wager and his services have not been regularized so far. On the contrary one Vishambharsingh Bhadoriyajunior to the petitioner has been regularized. It is the case of the petitioner that Vishambharsingh Bhadoriya was appointed subsequent to the petitioner, in fact he was appointed in the year 1990 after his services were initially terminated by the State Government. Bringing on record an order Annexure P-l dated 11.11.1998 passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 507/1996, wherein one Ravindra Sharma, who was also a daily wage employee appointed in the year 1988 like the petitioner, claimed regularization inter alia on the ground that Vishambharsingh Bhadoriya respondent No.4 in OA No. 507/96 has been regularized. Considering the same, State Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 11.11.1998 has directed the State Government to consider the claim of the applicant for regularization with effect from the date the regularization order was passed in the case of Vishambharsingh Bhadoriya. Against the aforesaid order of the State Administrative Tribunal it seems that a writ petition was filed before this Court and this Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of State Administrative Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the same, Civil Appeals No. 7035/2001 and 7036/2001 were filed before the Supreme Court by the employees concerned, who had claimed regularization and seniorioty to Vishambharsingh Bhadoriya. The SLP was allowed vide order dated 8.10.2001 and the order of the Tribunal was affirmed. From the aforesaid it is clear that keeping in view the regularization of Vishambharsingh Bhadoriya, other similarly situated persons like the petitioners, namely, Ravindra Sharma and Ram Niwas Rajput, who had filed application before the State Administrative Tribunal, have been granted same relief and grievance of the petitioner is that even though all the juniors to the petitioner have been regularized, his case has not been considered. On notice being issued respondents have filed reply, in which respondents do not indicate as to why the claim of the petitioner has not been considered and what is the difference in the matter from the other employees like Vishambharsingh Bhadoriya, Ravindra Sharma and Ram Niwas Rajput. On the contrary, respondents have simply stated that vacant posts are not available, therefore claim of the petitioner has not been considered. Considering the claim of the petitioner, as persons junior to the petitioner have been regularized, keeping in view the directives of the Supreme Court in the order Annexure P-2 dated 8.10.2001 affirming earlier order of State Administrative Tribunal vide Annexure P-1 on 11.11.1998, respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh and after taking note of the contention of the petitioner that juniors to him like Vishambharsingh Bhadoriya, Ravindra Sharma and Ram Niwas Rajput have been granted the benefit, take final decision in the matter and in case it is found that petitioner is senior to aforesaid juniors, relief as has been granted to Vishambharsingh Bhadoriya be granted the same to the petitioner. Necessary action be taken within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Petition is allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid.