Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 359 (MP)

Narayan Ajit v. State of M. P.

2020-03-03

SUBODH ABHYANKAR

body2020
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, a daily wager employee under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 18.9.2017 passed by the respondent No.4/Executive Engineer whereby the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner's appointment was on compassionate basis only and there was no vacant post available. 2. The case of the petitioner is that services of similarly situated employees namely Govind Vishwakarma, Raju Patel, Smt. Uma Khare, Smt. Gulab Bai Pathak and Smt. Rekha Garewal who were also appointed on compassionate basis have already been regularized despite the fact that these persons were appointed on 26.7.1994 along with the petitioner but the petitioner has been left out. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has also obtained the information regarding the status of vacant posts and as per the information provided by the Chief Engineer, Rani Avanti Bai Sagar Pariyojana Bargi Hills, Jabalpur three posts of Chowkidar are still vacant. Thus, it is submitted that the denial of petitioner's claim for regularization on the ground that no vacant posts are available cannot be sustained specially when the services of other similarly situated employees viz. Govind Vishwakarma, Raju Patel, Smt. Uma Khare, Smt. Gulab Bai Pathak and Smt. Rekha Garewal have already been regularized. 4. In the return the respondents have opposed the prayer of the petitioner and it is averred that the petitioner's claim has been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee vide order dated 5.12.2017 after due consideration of the material available on record which has decided that the petitioner's appointment was on compassionate basis only and also that no vacant post was available. It is also stated that the petitioner has not stated as to how the case of the petitioner is similar to other employees. Thus it is prayed that the petition be dismissed. 5. On due consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the record this Court finds that the petitioner has clearly mentioned that other similarly situated employees namely Govind Vishwakarma, Raju Patel, Smt. Uma Khare, Smt. Gulab Bai Pathak and Smt. Rekha Garewal were appointed along with the petitioner vide order Annexure P-1 dated 26.7.1994, as these employees were also appointed on compassionate basis. The petitioner has also placed on record the list of three vacant posts. 6. The petitioner has also placed on record the list of three vacant posts. 6. As a result, petition stands partly allowed and the impugned order dated 18.9.2017 is hereby quashed with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services in accordance with law, as the petitioner has also placed on record the document demonstrating availability of three vacant posts and there is no rebuttal on behalf of the respondents. 7. The aforesaid exercise be completed within 3 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. No cost.