Sharda Bai vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Prakash Shrivastava, J.—Heard finally with consent.

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking modification in the order dated 1/6/2009 to the extent that instead of holding qualified for regularisation, the petitioner should be held entitled for regularisation on the post of contingency Class IV employee on completion of period of five years by calculating the five years period from the date of her initial appointment in terms of the Circular dated 17/3/1978.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the similar controversy has been decided by this Court in the matter of Narayan Diwale Vs. State of MP vide order dated 19/3/2012 passed in WP No. 2434/2012 and Naval Singh Kalose Vs. State of MP and others in WP No. 4781/2012 vide order dated 16/5/2012. He has prayed for disposal of the present writ petition on the same terms.

Learned counsel for State has not opposed the said prayer.

This Court by order dated 19/3/2012 had disposed of the case of Narayan Diwale (supra) by observing as under:-

�This order shall also govern the disposal of WP.No. 5941/11wherein petitioner is Indraraj Singh. The prayer in both the petitions is to modify the order dated 02/02/09 passed by the respondent No. 2 to the extent that instead of holding qualification for regularization of the petitioner, the petitioner should be held to be entitled for regularisation on the post of contingency Class-IV employee on completion of the period of five years, by calculating the period of 5 years from the date of his initial appointment, as per the circular dated 17/03/1978 issued by the Finance Department of the State, and to treat the petitioner''s services as qualifying service from the date of his initial appointment and the petitioner should not be treated to be a fresh appointee either as on 02/02/09 or on any subsequent date, by extending all consequential benefits to the petitioner, including the payment of arrears, alongwith interest @ 12% P.A.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are total 270 employees, out of which 70 employees preferred writ petitions before this Court, which were allowed by this Court. It is submitted that in the writ appeal and also by the Hon''ble Apex Court the order was maintained. For this contention reliance is placed by the counsel for the petitioner on order dated 23/07/10 passed in WP.No. 4975/09(s) filed by Rewaram, order dated 18/05/11 passed in WA.No. 225/11 and C.C.No. 21264/11 passed by Hon''ble Apex Court. It is submitted that in those petitions monetary benefit was given from the date of filing of the petition and thereafter one Dhannubai again filed a Writ Petition which was numbered as WP.No. 85/11 and was disposed of by the Divisional Bench of this Court vide order dated 27/08/11 whereby Divisional Bench held that the employees of this category are entitled for the benefit from the date of completion of five years of service. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the same benefit be extended to the petitioner.

After hearing the counsel for the parties at length, petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a short direction that the petitioner shall move a fresh representation alongwith copy of the order passed today and also copies of those orders on which reliance is placed. If such a representation is submitted before the competent Authority, then the competent Authority shall decide the same strictly as per the Law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision. Needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the representation.

With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. Copy of this order be placed in the record of connected petition�.

The case of Naval Kalose was disposed of following the order in the case of Narayan Diwale.

Keeping in view the submissions which have been made by the learned counsel for parties before this Court, the present writ petition is disposed of by holding that the directions which have been issued in the case of Narayan Diwale (supra) and Navalsingh Kalose (supra) will apply mutatis mutandis in the case of the present petitioner also and the representation submitted by the petitioner be disposed of by the competent authority in terms of the directions issued in the matter of Narayan Diwale (supra).

The petition is accordingly disposed of.

C.C. as per rules.