Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 309 (MP)

Madhubala Verma v. State of M. P.

2012-03-16

N.K.MODY

body2012
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. This order shall also govern WP Nos.920/2011, 922/2011, 924/2011, 959/2011, 960/2011, and 968 to 978 of 2011. 3. Prayer in the petition is to quash so called oral termination order of the petitioner and to command the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as EGS Guruji with all consequential and monetary benefits. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was discontinued on 2/06/2000 alongwith 99 other employees. It is submitted that out of 100 employees the respondents reinstated 80 employees of their own. It is submitted that three employees filed writ petition before this Court which is numbered as 1637/2006(S) and the same was allowed vide order dated 30/03/2009 holding that the orders of termination passed against the petitioners are hereby quashed and the petitioners are ordered to be reinstated in service as Guruji as per their entitlement with effect from the date their services were so dispensed with. It was directed that the petitioners would also be entitled to continuity of service. However, as per the claim given up by their learned counsel the petitioners would not be entitled for any back wages. Learned counsel submits that in pursuant to the order dated passed by this Court the employees who approached this Court were reinstated in service vide order dated 13/06/2010. It was expected from the State Government to provide similar treatment to the petitioners but the prayer was refused. Hence this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State submits that the order of termination is of the year 2000 while the petition is filed in the year 2010. It is submitted that similar type treatment cannot be given to the petitioners after lapse of more than ten years. It is submitted that petition filed by the petitioners be dismissed. 6. In the matter of State of Karnataka v/s C.Lalitha [(2006)2SCC 747] Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that: “29. Service Jurisprudence evolved by the Court from time to time postulate all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the Court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently. It is further more well settled that question of seniority should be governed by the rules. 7. In the matter of Lt. Governor of Delhi v/s Const. Only because one person has approached the Court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently. It is further more well settled that question of seniority should be governed by the rules. 7. In the matter of Lt. Governor of Delhi v/s Const. Dharampal [ AIR 1990 SC 2059 ]wherein some constables reinducted in view of public controversy and in deference to views expressed in Parliament, Hon.Apex Court has held other similarly situated constables would also be entitled to reinstatement and other consequential benefits, even after more than 15 years. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid position of law, it was expected from the respondents to give similar type of treatment to the similarly situated employees as directed by this Court in WP No.1637/2006 (Supra). Since the petitioner has not been reinstated in service, therefore, petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches on the part of the petitioner. 9. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The order of termination passed against the petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be reinstated in service as Guruji as per entitlement with effect from the date his services were so dispensed with. The petitioner would also be entitled to continuity of service. However, as per the claim given up by his counsel, the petitioner would not be entitled for any back wages. 10. The requisite process be completed within a period of four months from the date of a certified copy of this order presented.