Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 312 (MP)

Rajendra Kumar v. State of M. P.

2012-03-16

S.C.SHARMA, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2012
ORDER 1. By filing this intra Court appeal under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, the appellant has challenged the order dated 07.11.2006 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.4871 of 2003. The said writ petition has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge by passing the following order : “ For the reasons stated in common order passed today in W.P.No.3603/2005 (S) (Rakesh s/o Parshuram Yadav and others V/s State of M.P. and others), in which this Court held thus : i) The daily wages employees, engaged even prior to 31.12.1988 in the State of M.P., are not entitled for their regularisation in the light of the policy dated 9.1.90 or on the basis of plea of discrimination or otherwise, except who falls within the purview of direction of para (ii) below. ii) The daily wages employees, who were appointed, irregularly (not illegally) prior to 31.12.88 on a sanctioned vacant post, possessing qualification/eligibility and have continuously worked without intervension of the Court are entitled for their consideration of regularisation in view of the discussion made hereinabove by adopting one time measure. The State Government or the instrumentalities of the State shall take recourse for such employees within a period of six months from today in the light of the observations as made in para 53 in the case of Umadevi (Supra). iii) For remaining other employees who are working on daily wages, and are not covered by the directions of para (ii) hereinabove, the Government is directed to initiate the process of regular selection and recruitment, on the available vacant post as directed by the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (Supra) iv) As and when vacancies are filled up by the Government by regular process of selection such daily wages employees, be benefitted by the age relaxation to the period to which they have rendered their services, while facing regular process of selection for recruitment by them. v) The respondents should also carve out the measure to grant them additional marks/preference in the process of selection, by virtue of their experience of work on the post, while filling up the vacancies in accordance with the provisions of rules. vi) Petitions filed by petitioners, challenging the order of cancellation of regularisation, are allowed and the orders of cancellation of regularisation are hereby quashed. vi) Petitions filed by petitioners, challenging the order of cancellation of regularisation, are allowed and the orders of cancellation of regularisation are hereby quashed. vii) Petitioners be given minimum pay in the corresponding scale to the post or cadre in which they are working in the concerned department, from the date of passing of this order. Such benefit be extended to them within a period of six months. viii) Petitioners who want to seek the relief of classification by approaching the Labour Court; are free to take such recourse if they are covered under the provisions of the Industrial Laws or Labour Laws. This writ petition is disposed of. No costs.” 2. We find that in the entire order there is no direction issued by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has merely extracted the order passed in Writ Petition No.3603 of 2005 (S) [Rakesh s/o Parshuram Yadav and others v/s State of M.P. and others] and thereafter the petition is disposed of. There is no mention even as to the case of the appellant is covered by the order passed in the case of Rakesh s/o Parshuram Yadav and others (Supra). The learned Single Judge has also not recorded any finding that the order passed in Rakesh s/o Parshuram Yadav and others (supra) shall apply to the case of the present appellant (Petitioner in Writ Petition (S) No.4871 of 2003). In the circumstances in the absence of any writ being issued by the learned Single Judge, we have no option but to setaside the impugned order dated 07.11.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge. We accordingly setaside the order dated 07.11.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.4871 of 2003 and remit the matter to the learned Single Judge for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law. 3. Accordingly the writ appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above.