Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/29859/2018 of MUNENDRA PRASAD DWIVEDI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWALON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 29859 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
MUNENDRA PRASAD DWIVEDI S/O LATE KEDHARPRASAD DWIVEDI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,OCCUPATION: WORKING ON THE POST OF DRIVER INNAGAR PANCHAYAT JAITWARA R/O. BARATOLA WARDNO. 9, NAGAR PANCHAYAT JAITWARA (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI VINOD KUMAR NAPIT - ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONER
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRPRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF PANCHAYAT ANDSOCIAL WELFARE DEPT. VALLABH BHAWANBHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF PANCHAYAT ANDSOCIAL WELFARE DEPT. VALLABH BHAWANBHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.COMMISSIONER DIVISION REWA REWA(MADHYA PRADESH)(MADHYA PRADESH)
3.CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER NAGAR PARISADJAITWARA DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)JAITWARA DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.RAMESH KUMAR VISHWAKARMA S/O NOTKNOWN OCCUPATION: POST DRIVER AT NAGARPANCHAYAT JAITWARA DISTT. SATNA (MADHYAPRADESH)KNOWN OCCUPATION: POST DRIVER AT NAGARPANCHAYAT JAITWARA DISTT. SATNA (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FORRESPONDENT NOS. 1 AND 2/STATE)(SHRI ANUP SINGH - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 3)(SHRI ISHTEYAQ HUSSAIN - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 4)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
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.
ORDER
Petitioner's contention is that he has been discriminated in the matter ofregularization on the post of Driver qua respondent no. 4. Admittedly,petitioner was working as a daily wager Tractor Driver since 1985.
The proceedings for regularization took place on 31/06/2005 and privaterespondent who was junior to the petitioner was regularized.
Shri Anup Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 in his turn submitsthat petitioner was removed from service and was reinstated vide order dated1/10/1999 passed by the Labour Court, Satna in Case No. 3/91/ID ActReference and, therefore, since, he was out of job till 1/10/1999, he was treatedto be junior to the private respondent who was regularly working as daily wageDriver since 1990 and in terms of the reply vide I.A. No. 10123/2019, it ispointed out by Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Jaitwara, DistrictSatna that when the case was taken up for consideration, then a fresh gradationlist was prepared.
Taking this fact into consideration that petitioner was working since 1985whereas private respondent was working since 1990 and treating him to besenior, he was regularized.
Another stand which has been taken by the State and the MunicipalCouncil that in the year 2017, qualification of higher secondary was prescribedand since that qualification is not fulfilled by the petitioner, he could not beregularized on the post of 'Driver'. The only issue which is to be adjudicatedherein is that Municipal Council was entitled to downgrade the seniority of thepetitioner on the basis of his reinstatement in the year 1999 as per the orders ofthe Labour Court overlooking his past service from 1985 where appointment ofthe petitioner is prior to the date of the private respondent.
Conclusion
At this distance of time, instead of upsetting the proceedings, this petitioncan be disposed of with a direction that petitioner is entitled to all the benefits ofregularization and consequential benefits with effect from 2005 and if the post isnot in existence, then a supernumerary post be created and petitioner be grantedall the benefits with effect from the date his junior was regularized on the post ofDriver within thirty days from the date of communication of this order as primafacie, an illegality has been committed by the then Chief Municipal Officer indisturbing the seniority list on the basis of order of reinstatement without takinginto consideration the fact that order of dismissal was since declared to beillegal by the Labour Court and that was not put to challenge, original order ofseniority i.e. from the initial date of engagement i.e. 1985 is to be taken intoconsideration and not the date of reinstatement i.e. 1/10/1999.
At this stage, Shri Anup Singh, learned counsel takes an objection thatsuch order cannot be passed by this court. As per the objections taken by ShriAnup Singh, earlier this Court had taken a lineant view of not upsetting thesettled position of promotion of private respondent which has remained in forcefor about 18 years but since Shri Anup Singh is showing extra indulgence andsubmitting and this court cannot pass any directions in the form of PIL, withoutunderstanding the fact that these directions are to protect the interest of aperson who was already given promotion in the year 2005, order ofregularization of respondent no. 4 can be set aside by the Municipal Council asit is illegal.
At this stage, Shri Anup Singh, learned counsel apologises for hismisadventure and making arguments beyond his brief. His apology isaccepted.
Accordingly, earlier directions to grant benefit of regularization to the petitioner from the date on which his junior was regularized is retreated asadmittedly, petitioner is senior to the private respondent and respondents werenot entitled to deduct the intervening period of termination which has been setaside by the Labour Court. That directions be complied within thirty days.
The Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Jaitwara shall bear thecost of litigation which is quantified at Rs. 10,000/- which will be payable to thepetitioner.
In above terms, the petition is disposed of.
vy
(VIVEK AGARWAL)JUDGE