Contractual employees completing more than 10 years on the contractual post and possessing the requisite qualifications are entitled to be considered for regularization in view of the circular dated 5-6-2018.

ORDER : – By this petition, the petitioners seek writ of mandamus against the respondents to regularize their services on the post of Peon from the initial date of appointment along with all the consequential benefits.

2. An advertisement (Annexure P-1) for filling up the back log of SC-ST, OBC and handicapped category of Class III and Class IV posts for newly constituted Tehsil under the Special Recruitment Drive was issued by respondent No. 2. The appointment on Class IV post (Peon) was on contract basis on a fixed salary. Pursuant to whereof, petitioners were appointed vide order dated 14-7-2010 (Annexure P-3), initially for a period of one year. Their contract was thereafter extended from time to time vide Annexure P-3.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are working as Peon since the year 2010 against the regular sanctioned post and therefore, entitled for regularization of their service in terms of the State Government’s circular dated 5-6-2018. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Single Bench decision of Indore Bench of this Court passed on 19-4-2018 in a bunch of writ petitions, main being W. P. No. 1357/2016, Madanlal Kayat and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, wherein the Process Servers, who were appointed on contract basis were extended the benefit of regularization. Their further grievance is that juniors to them have been regularized but their representation in this regard have not been paid heed to.

4. Per contra, the contention of learned counsel for respondents is that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis under the special recruitment drive. Their service conditions are governed by the condition stipulated in their appointment letters, hence not entitled for regularization. The circular dated 5-6-2018 is only an executive instructions and advisory in nature, directing to convert contractual post to regular post in a phased manner if any recruitment process is initiated. It is submitted that when recruitment process will be initiated, the petitioners would be given preference. It is further denied that any junior to petitioners have been regularized.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The State Government has issued a circular dated 5-6-2018 for providing regularization of contractual employee and the scheme reads as under : –

7. The aforesaid circular provides for regularization of contractual employees of Class I, II, III and IV posts on the condition that the contractual employee has completed minimum five years of period on that post and possesses the requisite qualifications as per the rules.

8. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis as Peon on the sanctioned post after following the selection process and have completed more than 10 years on that contractual post. Their appointment was done pursuant to the State Government’s circular dated 18-12-2008 wherein direction was given to fill up the sanctioned post of Peon and Process Server in the newly constituted Tehsil by contractual appointment.

9. The only contention of respondents is that the case of petitioners will be considered as and when regular posts are available.

10. The petitioners possess the requisite qualification and were appointed as Peon on the sanctioned vacant post after following the due process of selection. The work of Peon is of regular nature. They have put in more than 10 years of continuous service in the respondent department/establishment without the intervention of any interim order of any Court, hence, they are entitled to be considered for regularization in view of circular dated 5-6-2018. Keeping a contractual employee on the sanctioned post for more than 10 years and not giving them the benefit of regularization is nothing but a form of exploitation.

11. Resultantly, this petition is disposed of. The respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioners for regularization in