Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/26406/2021 of TEHSILDAR SINGH GURJAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIORBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKEON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 26406 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
TEHSILDAR SINGH GURJAR S/O SHRI HAKIM SINGHGURJAR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCCUPATION:SERVICE ON DAILY WAGES AS AMIN, WATERRESOURCES SUB DIVISION GORMI, BHIND (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ALOK KUMAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE AND SHRI RAMESHSHARAN SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPALSECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ENGINEER IN CHIEF WATER RESOURCEDEPARTMENT JAL SANSADHAN BHAWAN, TULSINAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)DEPARTMENT JAL SANSADHAN BHAWAN, TULSINAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CHIEF ENGINEER YAMUNA BASIN, WATERRESOURCES, DEPARTMENT, CHAMBAL COLONY,THATIPUR, MORAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER WATER RESOURCED EPARTM EN T CIRCLE GWALIOR, DISTT.GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)D EPARTM EN T CIRCLE GWALIOR, DISTT.GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. EXECUTIVE ENGIENEER, WATER RESOURCEDEPARTMENT, BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI K.S. TOMAR - GOVT. ADVOCATE )
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the At the outset Shri Alok Sharma while placing reliance on the order passedin W.A. No. 159 of 2022 dated 13.6.2022 passed by Division Bench of thisCourt contended that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by theaforesaid order and therefore rejection of the representation of the petitionervide Annexure P/1 dated 9.12.2020 is per se illegal. It has further beencontended that the Division Bench of this Court has already put thecontroversy to rest and has observed that if the State has increased the agelimit in all fairness, all existing private respondents performing duties havingpassed in the departmental examination could not have been deniedregularization as Ameen only for the reason that they did not have the degree ofgraduation. It is submitted that in the present case this is not the issue but sincethe petitioner was working as daily wager as Ameen and the respondentdepartment denied his case for regularization on the ground that initialappointment was irregular in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'bleSupreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs.Umadevireported in (2006)4 SCC 1 is per se, illegal.
Per contra Shri Tomar appeared for the State submitted that no illegalityhas been committed by the respondent in rejecting the representation of thepetitioner as the very appointment of the petitioner as a daily wager was not inconsonance with the rules or procedure nor any procedure was followed and inthe light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex court in the matter of UmaDevi (supra) the petitioner cannot be regularized.
After hearing the rival contentions this Court finds that the services of thepetitioner is governed by the MP Water Resources Department (non gazetted)
Service Recruitment Rules, 1965 and as per the aforesaid rules the petitionerwas held to be qualified to work as daily wager and he was working as a Ameenfor the last 40 years and this fact has not be denied by the respondents. Thus,this Court in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.A. 159 2022, relegates the matter to the competent authority to decide the case of thepetitioner for regularization in the light of the aforesaid order and in case thepetitioner is found to be eligible he may be regularized from the date of hisentitlement.
In that regard petitioner is directed to file fresh representation before thecompetent authority within a period of 15 days from today, thereafter thecompetent authority shall decide the representation within a further period offour weeks.
ar
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)JUDGE