Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, INDORE BENCH
J.K. Maheshwari, J.
Rakesh Yadav And Others - Appellant
Vs.
State of M.P. And Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 3603 of 2005 (S)
Decided On : 07-11-2006
DAILY WAGES EMPLOYEES - REGULARISATION - ACT SECTION LISTED - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
Numerous writ petitions were filed by daily wage employees seeking regularisation of their services, payment of minimum salary in the regular scale of pay, and quashing of orders rejecting their representations. The petitioners were engaged as daily rated employees in various departments of the State of Madhya Pradesh since 1988. They submitted representations for regularisation, citing government policies and discrimination against them.
Finding of the Court:
The court examined the relevant government policies, including the policy dated 9-1-1990 and the subsequent circular dated 12-4-2005, and concluded that the petitioners were not entitled to regularisation based on those policies. The court also considered the Supreme Court judgments in Umadevi and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees' Union Vs. Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited and Another, and State of Punjab and Others Vs. Devinder Singh and Others.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to regularisation of their services based on government policies or on the grounds of discrimination. 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to payment of minimum salary in the regular scale of pay. 3. Whether the orders rejecting the petitioners' representations were valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to regularisation based on government policies or on the grounds of discrimination. The cutoff date for regularisation was fixed by the government as 31-12-1988, and the petitioners were not appointed prior to that date. 2. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to payment of minimum salary in the regular scale of pay, corresponding to the post on which they were working. This was in accordance with the Supreme Court's judgment in Umadevi and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others. 3. The court held that the orders rejecting the petitioners' representations were not valid, as they were passed without following the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The court disposed of all the writ petitions with the following directions: 1. Daily wages employees engaged prior to 31-12-1988 were not entitled to regularisation, except those who fell within the purview of the one-time measure for consideration of regularisation. 2. Daily wages employees appointed irregularly (not illegally) prior to 31-12-1988 on a sanctioned vacant post, possessing qualification/eligibility and having continuously worked without intervention of the Court were entitled to consideration of regularisation by adopting a one-time measure within six months. 3. The government was directed to initiate the process of regular selection and recruitment for the remaining daily wages employees. 4. Daily wages employees were to be given age relaxation and additional marks/preference in the selection process. 5. Orders of cancellation of regularisation were quashed. 6. Petitioners were to be given minimum pay in the corresponding scale to the post or cadre in which they were working within six months. 7. Petitioners could approach the Labour Court for classification if they were covered under the provisions of Industrial Laws or Labour Laws.
J.K. Maheskwari, J.
This order shall govern the disposal of the following cases:
1. W.P.S 3098/2004 Balkrishna Sharma vs. The State of M.P. 2. W.P.S 3163/2004 Smt. Sandhya and ors. vs. The State of M.P. 3. W.P. 945/2005(S) Babulal Bhatnagar vs. The State of M.P., 4. W.P. 1189/2005(S) Gopal Malviya vs. The State of M.P., 5. W.P. 1502/2005(S) Nayadar Yadav vs. The State of M.P., 6. W.P. 1504/2005(S) Omprakash vs. The State of M.P., 7. W.P. 8945/2003 K.K. Joshi vs. The State of M.P., 8. W.P. 2141/2005(S) Omprakash vs. Municipal Corpn. Ratlam, 9. W.P. 2146/2005(S) Amitkumar Bajpai vs. The State of M.P., 10. W.P. 1534/2003 Jairam vs. The State of M.P., 11. W.P. 4871/2003 R.K. Shivde vs. The State of M.P., 12. W.P. 3515/2005(S) Rajendra and Ors. vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi, 13. W.P. 3572/2005(S) Devilal vs. The State of M.P. 14. W.P. 3760/2005(S) Santoshkumar vs. The State of M.P., 15. W.P. 9107/2003 Shankar Lal vs. The State of M.P., 16. W.P. 6166/2006(S) Radheshyam vs. The State of M.P., 17. W.P. 5336/2006(S) Nandlal vs. State of M.P., 18. W.P. 76/2006(S) Udai Bhanu vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, 19. W.P. 77/2006(S) Hari Singh vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti 20. W.P. 79/2006(S) Deepak Kumar vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, 21. W.P. 171/2006(S) Man Singh and ors. vs. The State of M.P., 22. W.P. 577/2006(S) Sanjay Kumar Soni vs. The State of M.P., 23. W.P. 660/2006(S) Mohd. Shafique Khan vs. The State of M.P., 24. W.P. 687/2006(S) Rajendra Singh vs. The State of M.P., 25. W.P. 878/2006(S) Rup Singh Jamra vs. The State of M.P., 26. W.P. 892/2006(S) Hukumchand Salve vs. The State of M.P., 27. W.P. 958/2006(S) Bisan vs. The State of M.P., 28. W.P. 960/2006(S) Shankar vs. The State of M.P., 29. W.P. 1107/2006(S) Madhusudan Jadhav vs. The State of M.P., 30. W.P. 1219/2006(S) Rajesh Rao Pawar vs. The State of M.P., 31. W.P. 4441/2006(S) Ramesh vs. State of M.P., 32. W.P. 1254/2006(S) Vinod Pandya vs. The State of M.P., 33. W.P. 1358/2006(S) Hiralal vs. The State of M.P., 34. W.P. 1369/2006(S) Mukesh Kumar vs. Municipal Corpn., 35. W.P. 4409/2006(S) Ashok Kumar vs. The State of M.P., 36. W.P. 1494/2006 Tulsiram vs. The State of M.P., 37. W.P. 1597/2006(S) Miss Hemlata Saxena vs. MNS. Cor. Ratlam, 38. W.P. 1598/2006(S) Lakhan Singh vs. The State of M.P., 39. W.P. 1747/2006(S) Govind Prasad vs. The State of M.P., 40. W.P. 1748/2006(S) Ramsingh vs. The State of M.P., 41. W.P. 1758/2006(S) Smt. Keshri Bai vs. The State of M.P., 42. W.P. 1759/2006(S) Amarnath vs. The State of M.P., 43. W.P. 1798/2006(S) Smt. Geeta Bai vs. The State of M.P., 44. W.P. 1889/2006(S) Parmanand Parmar vs. The State of M.P., 45. W.P. 4343/2006(S) Sayyad Zakir Hussain vs. State of M.P., 46. W.P. 1959/2006(S) Omprakash Trivedi vs. The State of M.P., 47. W.P. 2251/2006(S) Nirmala Bai vs. Indore Municipal Corporation, 48. W.P. 2287/2006(S) Irshad Ali vs. The State of M.P., 49. W.P. 2526/2006(S) Basant Kumar Dadore vs. State of M.P., 50. W.P. 3008/2006(S) Ashok Kushwaha vs. The State of M.P., 51. W.P. 3260/2006(S) Mata Prasad Sharma vs. The State of M.P., 52. W.P. 3394/2006(S) Veersingh vs. State of M.P., 53. W.P. 3477/2006(S) Yogendra vs. Municipal Corporation, Ratlam.
2. In all these writ petitions Petitioners have made a prayer to consider their cases for regularisation and to grant relief of regularisation from due date and payment of the minimum salary in the regular scale of pay, with effect from their initial date of appointment. In some of the cases prayer is made to quash the orders of rejection of their representations, passed by the Respondents despite the Court order. In some of the cases regularisation have been sought for in other department i.e. Education Department. In some of the cases the orders of cancellation of regularisation has been challenged asking relief of the quashment of such orders.
3. In all these writ petitions the common questions of law with respect to Petitioners' consideration for regularisation, or to cancel such regularisation, or to extend the
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
