In a petition filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court to grant seniority to the petitioner at par with the respondents 4 and 5 and to set aside an order dated 30-09-2015, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Deepak Khot held that the impugned order did not pass the judicious scrutiny of the Court and directed the authorities to grant the benefits of regularization to the petitioner similar to that of the said respondents while quashing the impugned order.
The petitioner had been appointed as a daily rated employee on 09-04-1990, but had not been given the benefit of regularization, whereas respondents 4 and 5, who were appointed as daily wagers on 24-07-1991, were regularized vide order dated 25-02-1992. Being aggrieved by the respondents’ ill action, the petitioner and other employees filed applications before the State Administrative Tribunal and filed writ petitions.
The petitioner’s service was regularized, subject to the condition that she would not be entitled to any seniority or arrears of monetary benefits. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition, which was disposed of vide order dated 30.11.2013, directing the respondents to decide the petitioner’s claim for regularization and to strike off the said condition. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation, which was decided vide order dated 30-09-2015.
A committee was constituted, which decided to grant the benefit to the petitioner on par with respondents 4 and 5. However, another meeting was convened on 09-09-2015, at which the committee resolved that the petitioner was not entitled to benefits on par with respondents 4 and 5. The petitioner contended that the order dated 30-09-2015 was passed on the basis of the said meeting and, hence, prayed for its quashing.
The respondents submitted that the committee had resolved that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit on par with the said respondents, as respondents 4 and 5 had not been posted in regular establishment and were made to work as daily wagers.
The Court noted that earlier, this Court had observed that such conditions could not be imposed, as they were hit by Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution, and that there was no challenge to this order.
The Court perused the impugned order and observed that the respondents 4 and 5 were appointed to regular posts but were allowed to work as daily wagers in the absence of any administrative sanction. It was also observed that, just eight months after their appointment, the respondents were considered for regularization. The Court found the State’s stand contrary and said that if the respondents were appointed to a regular post, there was no requirement for the State to reappoint them in a regular establishment through a departmental process. Thus, the Court found the explanation given in the order neither legal nor logical and therefore refused to accept the same.
Further, the Court noted that the impugned order did not mention that respondents 4 and 5 were appointed to regular posts and that they continued as daily wagers due to the non-grant of administrative sanction. The Court stated that the State was silent on why a second meeting was called, given that the committee had already resolved to grant the benefits to the petitioner. The minutes of the meeting also showed that an individual wrote them, and they were later corrected to reflect it as the committee’s decision.
The Court stated that authorities are expected to adhere to the constitutional mandate of Articles 14 and 16 in every administrative decision. The Court referred to Amita v. Union of India & Anr (2005) 13 SCC 721 and opined that the impugned order failed to pass the judicious scrutiny of the Court. Thus, the impugned order dated 30-09-2015 was quashed, and the authorities were directed to extend the benefit of regularization to the petitioner, on a par with that granted to respondents 4 and 5.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Sanjay Rusia
For Respondents – Government Advocate
