Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 19 (MP)

Santosh Kumar v. State of M. P.

2023-01-03

VIVEK RUSIA

body2023
ORDER 1. Today this petition is listed on an application for urgent hearing filed on 29.3.2022. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State prays for time to file reply of this writ petition. The order-sheet reveals that the Government Advocate is seeking time to file reply since 15.6.2015 and finally this writ petition was admitted on 20.4.2016 with a direction to file reply within four weeks but till today reply has not been filed, therefore, right to file reply is hereby closed. Even this application for urgent hearing was supplied in the month of March, still reply has not been filed. Hence, petition is heard and decided on the basis of the documents filed along with the writ petition. Facts of the case in short are as under: 2. The petitioner is having a qualification of M.Com., Hindi Typing examination passed from M.P. Board in the year 1990 and accordingly he fulfills the requisite qualification for the post of Assistant Grade-III laid down in The Madhya Pradesh Revenue (Class-III Ministerial) Service Recruitment Rules, 1985. Initially he was appointed for election work, after appearing in written test and interview, vide order dated 27.1.1998. He was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-III in the pay-scale of 950/- to 1530/- (Annexure P/3). The said appointment was continued upto the year 2014. 3. The petitioner was declared surplus employee therefore, in view of the circular dated 19.9.1990, 10.9.1991 and 10.2.1994 he submitted representations seeking regularization by way of absorption. According to the petitioner, similarly placed employees appointed in Districts Jhabua, Rajgarh, Guna and Shajapur have been absorbed in the respective Revenue Districts but in the District Ujjain, no order has been passed hence, he approached this Court by way of W.P. No.1066/2007. Vide order dated 24.11.2008 the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the competent authority to consider the representation of the petitioner and decide by a speaking order within a period of six months. 4. In compliance of the aforesaid direction, the representation of the petitioner was considered by the then Collector and vide order dated 25.5.2009 (Annexure P/16) same has been rejected as the State Government has not granted any permission to fill the post till date. It appears that the representation of the petitioner has been rejected awaiting permission from the State Government. In compliance of the aforesaid direction, the representation of the petitioner was considered by the then Collector and vide order dated 25.5.2009 (Annexure P/16) same has been rejected as the State Government has not granted any permission to fill the post till date. It appears that the representation of the petitioner has been rejected awaiting permission from the State Government. Vide letter dated 9.6.2009 again a reminder was sent by the Additional Collector to the Revenue Department. The petitioner has filed a copy of letter dated 26.2.2011 whereby the Revenue Department has directed Collector to initiate the process to appoint the petitioner against any vacant post in the Tehsil or District but till date no action has been taken by the respondents. 5. The petitioner waited four years and thereafter filed this writ petition before this Court and unfortunately till today no reply has been filed by the State Government. Once this Court has directed the respondent to decide the representation after considering the merit of the case, the Collector Ujjain has rejected it awaiting response from the State and closed the matter. The claim of the petitioner was not liable to be closed, further correspondence ought to have been made with the State Government till the Government accepts or rejects. The petitioner is alleging the discrimination as the similarly placed employees of the other districts have been regularized after the orders passed by this Court. 6. All the orders are cumulatively filed as Annexure P/18 and Annexure P/19. There is no rebuttal by the State Government by filing reply, therefore, it can be presumed that the State Government has nothing to defend in this matter. 7. Let the direction given by this Court as well as the letter dated 26.2.2011 be complied with by passing a necessary order within a period of six weeks. 8. In view of the above, writ petition is allowed with the cost of Rs.20,000/- on the respondents for not filing the reply for so many years.