Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 408 (MP)

Ramesh Saini v. State of M. P.

2016-05-13

R.S.JHA

body2016
ORDER 1. The petitioners have filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent/authorities to regularize the services of the petitioners on the post of peon and pump operator and give them all consequential benefits. 2. The aforesaid claim of the petitioners is based on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, reported in [ (2006)4 SCC 1 ]. It is stated that in the present case as all the petitioners have rendered service for more than 10 years with the respondent, they may be directed to be regularized on the post on which they are working and be given all the consequential benefits. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am unable to locate any observation in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra), to the effect that in all cases where a person is working as daily wager for more than ten years has to be regularized and has to be paid regular salary. On the contrary, the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra), has deprecated the practice of regularizing daily wage employees and while doing so has stated that in case some persons who have been working as daily wagers for more than ten years as on the date of the judgment and have been engaged against the said post after following some procedure prescribed by law and that their engagement is not wholly illegal but irregular and vacant posts are available then such persons may be considered for regularization on the post as a one time measure. 4. It is also prima facie apparent from a perusal of Annexure P-2 filed by the petitioners alongwith the petition that Nagar Panchayat, Tendukheda, District Damoh have taken up the exercise of considering the case of persons who had been working for more than ten years as daily wager as directed in the case of Umadevi (supra), and have also stated in column 8 that their engagement was purely as a daily wage employee without following any procedure. 5. 5. However, as no document is available on record regarding decision or rejection of their cases for regularization, the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with a direction to the respondent/authorities to the effect that in case the authorities have not already examined and decided or rejected the case of the petitioners and in case the engagement of the petitioners is not wholly illegal and they have rendered service for more than ten years as on the date of decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra), and vacant posts are available, the case of the petitioners be examined for the purposes of regularization and appropriate decision thereon be taken by the authorities in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. 6. It is made clear that the aforesaid exercise shall be required to be undertaken only in case the exercise has not already been undertaken and completed by the respondent/authorities. 7. It is further ordered and directed that as there is no positive directions issued by this Court in favour of or against the petitioners, the authorities, on examining the case of the petitioners, would be at liberty to either accept or reject their claim by taking a decision in the matter in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and strictly in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Umadevi (supra). 8. With the aforesaid observations/directions the petition filed by the petitioners stands disposed of.