Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 64 (MP)

Umrao Singh Chouhan v. State of M. P.

2020-01-10

S.C.SHARMA, SHAILENDRA SHUKLA

body2020
ORDER Sharma, J.--1. The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated 4.4.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 1264/2009 (Umrao Singh Chouhan v. State of M.P. and ors.). 2. The facts of the case reveal that the present appellant before this Court was working as a daily wager, his juniors were regularized and he was not granted benefit of regularization. In those circumstances, he came up before this Court by filing a writ petition and the same was registered as W.P. No. 8164/2003. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed on 27.4.2005, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner/appellant taking in to account the regularization of junior persons. The order passed in W.P. No. 8164/2003 dated 27.4.2005 reads as under : "This petition has been originally filed before the State Administrative Tribunal, Indore, however, on the abolition of the Tribunal, this petition has been received by this Court for adjudication. With the consent of the parties, case is heard finally. The petitioner has filed this petition with regard to his regularization. It is submitted by the petitioner that he was engaged on daily wages w.e.f. 29.6.1985. Since then, he has been working as daily wage employee. In the meanwhile, the respondent has issued a circular dated 9.1.1990 directing all the department to regularize the services of all daily rated employees who are appointed on or before 31.12.1988. Inspite of that, he has not been regularized and the services of daily rated employees who are junior to the petitioner have been regularized. Respondents have filed the reply and submitted that the case of the petitioner is under consideration and the department has sent a proposal to the Government for sanction of 288 posts and in that list the name of the petitioner is at Serial No. 15. The sanction is awaited. Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petition of the petitioner is disposed of with the direction to finalize the case of the petitioner within 3 months from the date of receipt of the order. The Authorities should also keep in mind the fact that, any junior persons to the petitioner has been regularized or not. The petition is disposed of without any cost." 3. The Authorities should also keep in mind the fact that, any junior persons to the petitioner has been regularized or not. The petition is disposed of without any cost." 3. The case of the petitioner was considered for regularization by the respondents and the respondents have passed the detailed and exhaustive order regularizing the petitioner in service. The order regularizing the petitioner is on record and the same reads as under: ^^dk;kZy; vk;qDr Hkw&vfHkys[k ,oa cankscLr] e/;çns'k vkns'k Xokfy;j] fnukad 20-11-2006 Øekad 852@lhŒvksŒ@LFkkiuk&1@pŒJsŒ@2006 dysDVj] bUnkSj ds dk;kZy; dh Hkw&vfHkys[k LFkkiuk esa fnukad 31-12-1988 ds iwoZ ls dk;Zjr Jh mejko flag pkSgku] nSfud osruHkksxh deZpkjh ftyk dk;kZy; bankSj dks e/;çns'k 'kklu] dkfeZd Á'kklfud lq/kkj ,oa Áf'k{k.k foHkkx ds ifji= Øekad 16&1188&1@osŒvkŒçŒ@89 fnukad 9-1-1990 esa fufgr çkoèkkuksa ds vuqlkj xfBr dh xbZ Nkuchu lfefr dh vuq'kalk ds vk/kkj ij ,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa foHkkx esa LohÑr fu;fer prqFkZ Js.kh ds orZeku esa fjDr in ds fo#} fu;fer osrueku #i;s 2550@3540 esa vLFkkbZ :i ls vU; vkns'k rd fu;fer fd;k tkrk gSA budh ofj"Brk iwoZ Øekuqlkj ;Fkk&LFkku jgsxhA bUgsa fu;fer osrueku] fu;fer in ij mifLFkfr ds fnukad ls ns; gksxh] fdUrq in ij ofj"Brk buds dfu"B ds fu;ferhdj.k ds fnukad ls gh ekU; gksxhA fu;ferhdj.k ds fnukad ls mifLFkfr fnukad ds chp dh vof/k ds fy, ^^dk;Z ugha osru ugh^^ dk fl)kar ykxw gksxkA ¼2½ nSfud osruHkksxh deZpkfj;ksa ds fu;ferhdj.k dh dk;Zokgh 'kklu ds rr~le; Ápfyr ifji= ,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds ikyu esa fd;k x;k gSA ¼3½ mijksDrkuqlkj vkns'k tkjh djrs le; vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr@vU; fiNM+k oxZ ds fy, fu/kkZfjr vkj{k.k dk /;ku j[kk x;k gSA ¼4½ e/;çns'k 'kklu jktLo foHkkx ds funsZ'k fnukad 12-6-1996 dh Hkkouk ds vuq:i osruHkksxh deZpkjh ds fu;ferhdj.k esa mi;qDr la'kksèku@ifjorZu@fujLr djus ds vf/kdkj foHkkxk/;{k dks lfUufgr gksaxsA ¼5½ mijksDrkuqlkj deZpkjh dk dk;Z larks"kçn u gksus dh n'kk esa budh lsok,a fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ds lekIr dh tk,xhA ¼6½ ;fn mijksDr deZpkjh 'kkldh; lsok R;kxuk pkgsa rks ,d ekg dk uksfVl vFkok mlds ,ot esa ,d ekg dk osru ,oa HkRrksa dh jkf'k tek djuh gksxhA ;gh 'krZ 'kklu dh vksj ls ykxw gksxhA ¼7½ ;fn mijksDr deZpkjh vkns'k çkfIr ds lkr fnol ds vUnj vius dk;Z ij mifLFkr ugha gksrk gS rks ;g vkns'k muds laca/k esa Loeso fujLr ekuk tk,xkA ¼8½ ;g vkns'k rRdky çHkko'khy gksxkA vk;qDr] Hkw&vfHkys[k ,oa cankscLr e/;çns'kA** 4. The respondents in the aforesaid order have categorically stated that the petitioner/appellant shall be entitled for seniority from the date of his juniors have been regularized. Undisputedly, the appellant in the first round of litigation and before the learned Single Judge has made categorical statement that his juniors were regularized w.e.f. 8.11.1996, meaning thereby, the appellant is entitled for seniority as a regular employee w.e.f. 8.11.1996. The appellant as he was not granted the back wages and he was not being treated to be entitled for grant of pension, keeping in view the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, came up before this Court and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. 5. Shri Sumeet Samvatsar, learned counsel for the appellant has argued before this Court that once the appellant is entitled for seniority as a regular employee w.e.f. 1996, the pension scheme was very much applicable as the pension has been stopped in the State of Madhya Pradesh w.e.f. 1.1.2005. He has argued that the appellant is a regular employee since 1996, keeping in view the order passed by the State Government and, therefore, he is entitled for the pensionary dues also. He has also argued that the employee is also entitled for arrears of salary also, as he has actually worked on the post on which he has been regularized right from 1996. 6. Shri V. Gandhi, learned Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the prayer and his contention is that because the order of regularization was passed on 20.11.2006, the applicability of the Pension Rules have come to an end on 1.1.2005, the appellant is not entitled for pension and the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition. 7. This Court has carefully gone through the order regularizing the appellant. The State Government with open eye has passed an order holding that the appellant shall be entitled for seniority from the date of his juniors have been regularized, meaning thereby w.e.f. 1996 and once the appellant is treated as a regular employee since 1996, he is entitled for pension and not for contributory pension scheme, which came into force subsequently after 1.1.2005. 8. Resultantly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. The writ appeal is allowed. 8. Resultantly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. The writ appeal is allowed. The appellant shall be entitled for pension keeping in view M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, by treating him as a regular employee on account of the order passed by the State Government granting him seniority w.e.f. 1996. The appellant as he has worked on the post in question and it is not a case where he has not worked on the post on which he has been regularized shall also be entitled for the arrears of salary by granting him seniority w.e.f. 1996, ie., the date from which his immediate juniors were regularized. The exercise of granting arrears of salary be calculated within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid, the writ appeal stands allowed ...............