Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 640 (MP)

Brajmohan Shrivastava v. State of M. P.

2012-06-29

S.C.SHARMA

body2012
ORDER 1. Petitioner before this Court an employee serving as a Cleaner on daily wages under the Rural Engineering Services has filed this present petition claiming regularization in service. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that he is working as a Cleaner since 11-05-1988 and inspite of twenty two and a half years of service he has not been regularized. Learned counsel for the petitioner has at the outset stated before this Court that identical Writ petitions have been allowed vide order dated 11th May, 2011, in case of Time Keepers and the respondents therein have been directed to consider their cases, keeping in view the executive instructions dated 16-05-2007 and 08-02-2008, issued by the State Government. 3. Learned Government Advocate has not disputed the factual position in respect of the judgments delivered in the identical case. 4. This court in Writ Petition No. 898/2011(Narayan Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and others) in paragraph Nos - 6 to 8 has held as under :- “06. In the present case, the petitioners are serving the Rural Engineer service as daily wager since 1986. Learned counsel has placed on record an order of the State Government dated —/02/2008 No. 811/22/V-3/Gramin Sewa/08 and the same reveals that as many as 369 posts have been sanctioned by the State Government. The aforesaid facts has not been denied by the respondents in the return, meaning thereby the vacancies have been sanctioned by the State Government and they are in existence in the department. Respondent State has issued executive instructions pursuant to the judgment delivered by the apex Court in the State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006)4 SCC 1 , does provide for consideration of cases of employees, who have put in 10 years of service for regularization. Petitioner is continuing for last 24 years and as the petitioner has established before this Court that vacancies are available, the case of the petitioner cannot be turned down by the respondents only on the ground that at the time of appointment of the petitioner, petitioner was not appointed against the vacant post. 07. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed. Petitioner is continuing for last 24 years and as the petitioner has established before this Court that vacancies are available, the case of the petitioner cannot be turned down by the respondents only on the ground that at the time of appointment of the petitioner, petitioner was not appointed against the vacant post. 07. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as well as for grant of additional emoluments as per the executive instructions dated 16-05-2007 and dated 08.02.2008 and also keeping in view the directions as contained in the judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006)4 SCC 1 . The aforesaid exercise of considering the case of the petitioner and passing necessary orders be concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 08. In Writ Petition Nos. 903/2011 and 904/2011, the petitioners are working on the post of Khasi and as post of Khasi Class-IV has been sanctioned by the State Government, their cases will also be considered, keeping in view the aforesaid direction for regularization.” 5. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment as the present petitioner is also an identically placed person, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as well as for grant of additional emoluments, as per the executive instructions dated 16-05-2007 and 08.02.2008 and also keeping in view the directions as contained in the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006)4 SCC 1 . The aforesaid exercises be concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.