Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1315 (MP)

Prashant Soni v. State of M. P.

2013-10-29

Rajendra Menon

body2013
ORDER 1. Petitioner claims to have been appointed in the establishment of the respondents prior to the year 1996 and having completed more than ten years of service, seeks benefit of Circular dated 24.5.2008 (Annexure P/6), issued by the State Government. 2. It is pointed out by P.C. Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner, that in pursuance to certain orders passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and Others – Appeal (Civil) No. 3595-3612/1999, State Government has formulated a policy for considering the claim of all daily wage employees who have completed ten years of service prior to 10.4.2006, for regularization. 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that even though petitioner has completed ten years of service and is entitled for consideration of his case in accordance to the Circular (Annexure P/6), the Nagar Palika Nigam, Sagar, respondent No. 2, is not forwarding the claim of the petitioner to the State Government for consideration. The relief claimed in this petition is that a direction be issued to respondent No. 2 to forward the claim of the petitioner for consideration in accordance to Circular (Annexure P/6). 4. Considering the aforesaid grievance made by the petitioner, it is thought appropriate to dispose of this petition with the following directions: I. On the petitioner’s filing a certified copy of this order, Commissioner of Nagar Palika Nigam, Sagar, respondent No. 2 shall examine the claim of the petitioner and thereafter in case it is found that the petitioner fulfils the requisite conditions contemplated in Circular (Annexure P/6) dated 24.5.2008, shall forward the case of the petitioner for consideration to the State Government in accordance to the aforesaid Circular. II. If, after the said examination, respondent No. 2 comes to the conclusion that petitioner is not entitled to the benefit arising out of the Circular (Annexure P/6) dated 24.5.2008, it shall be incumbent upon respondent No. 2 to record reasons for the same and communicate it to the petitioner. Either way, action shall be taken and decision communicated to the petitioner within a period of three months. III. Needless to emphasize, if still aggrieved by the action taken by respondent No. 2, petitioner shall have liberty to assail the same. 5. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid.