SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(MP) 116

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. S. JHA, P. K. JAISWAL
STATE OF M.P. - Appellant
Versus
PADAM CHAND - Respondents
W. P. 1116 Of 2001
Decided On : 01/20/2006

Advocates Appeared:
D.K.KATARE, S.S.Bansal, V.S.CHAUHAN

Termination must follow due process, Circulars cannot confer rights for regularisation if not consistent with recruitment rules.

Headnote:

Termination - State Government Employees - M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules - Rule 10(8), Circulars, Regularisation

Fact of the Case:

The state government terminated the services of employees without following due process. The employees claimed rights under circulars for regularisation.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the termination was not in accordance with the law and that the circulars did not confer rights for regularisation.

Issues: Termination without due process, Rights under circulars for regularisation

Ratio Decidendi: Termination must follow due process, Circulars cannot confer rights for regularisation if not consistent with recruitment rules.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and set aside the orders of the administrative tribunal, directing the state government to consider the engagement or reengagement of the employees based on the circulars and rules in force.

S. S. JHA, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER State has filed this petition challenging the order passed by the M. P. State administrative Tribunal, Bench Gwalior in o. A. No. 1225/1998.

( 2 ) RESPONDENTS are the employees of the state Government. Their services were terminated. They approached the Tribunal. Tribunal vide order dated July 29, 1995 set aside the order of termination on the ground that services have been terminated without issuing show cause notice and respondents were given liberty to initiate action in accordance with law. Case went up to the Apex court and leave to file appeal was not granted and Special leave petition was dismissed by the apex Court. Notices to show cause were issued to the respondents under Rule 10 (8) of M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1966 and services of respondents were terminated vide order dated august 25, 1998. It has been argued that major penalty has been imposed without following the procedure laid down in Rule 14 whereas, petitioner-State submitted before the Tribunal that the order of termination is termination simpliciter and it would not mean that the order of termination is by way of punishment. Tribunal, therefore, allowed the petition and set aside the order of termination.

( 3 ) IDENTICAL orders were passed earlier by the Tribunal and the dispute came up before this court in Writ Petition No. 1982/2001. Learned additional Advocate General, appearing for the State contended that previous orders were passed on the basis of circular issued by the state Government. In an appeal filed by the state Government order of reinstatement passed by the Tribunal was modified with a direction that under the circular dated december 31, 1990 case of each daily wage employee who were engaged prior to december 31, 1988 are entitled to be regularised if found suitable in the screening. Entire exercise was required to be completed within four months in the light of the circular issued by the State Government dated december 31, 1990. Counsel for the State submitted that that circular has now been withdrawn by the State Government therefore, previous orders of this Court on the basis of the circular will not be applicable in this case.

( 4 ) COUNSEL for the respondents submitted that the State Government has issued orders on august 22, 2001 that the employees engaged on daily wages in the hostels of Tribal Welfare department will not be retrenched. Therefore, the respondents who have been engaged prior to December 31, 1988 are entitled to continue on daily wages.

( 5 ) QUESTION involved in the case is whether the respondents were permanent employees or since they had continued in service for a long time, whether their services can be terminated under Rule 10 (8) of M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules.

( 6 ) RESPONDENTS-EMPLOYEES claimed that the General Administration Department, government of Madhya Pradesh had issued a circular dated January 17, 1993 and directions were issued to fill up available posts of reserved quota meant for members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and in terms of the specific directions to fill-up the posts from the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes. Welfare Department of State of M. P. had started the process for appointment by constituting a selection committee. Said selection committee considered the cases and appointed persons. Proceedings of the selection committee is filed as Annexure A/2 with the original application filed by the respondents before the Tribunal. The committee consisted of Additional Collector, Morena as the president, and District Organiser, Morena, principal, High School, Occha Pura, and regional Coordinator Sahariya Vikas abhikaran, Morena as its members. It was also recommended that the persons engaged on part time basis or as labours, shall be continued on daily wages fixed by the Collector of the district. Later on, orders were passed about the daily wagers and part time la

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top