The entitlement of daily wage employees for regularization/absorption in government service is dependent on fulfilling the requisite conditions contained in the Scheme based on the judgment of Umadevi.

This order will govern the disposal of WP No.218/2012, 301/2012, 344/2012, 345/2012, 430/2012, 683/2012, 684/2012, 11337/2012, 6771/2014, 8002/2016 & WP No.1645/2017 since it is jointly submitted by learned counsel for parties that all these writ petitions involve the same issue on the identical fact situation.

2. For convenience, the facts have been noted from WP No.218/2012.

3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31/8/2009 by which the petitioner's case for absorption has been rejected.

4. The petitioner has approached this court with the plea that he was appointed as choukidar in the country/foreign liquor shop run by the Excise Department of the State government and the services of the petitioner were terminated by order dated 31/3/2001 on the ground that as per the change in the government policy the country/foreign liquor shop in the tribal sub plan area would be auctioned. The petitioner had earlier filed OA No.694/2001 before the State Administrative Tribunal which on abolition of the tribunal was transferred to this court and registered as WP No.8725/2003 and was disposed of vide order dated 10/11/2003 with certain directions. The respondents thereafter had passed the order dated 13/6/2005 rejecting the claim of the petitioners for absorption/government employment. Challenging this order the petitioners had filed WP No.2442/2005 which was disposed of vide order dated 22/3/2006 in the light of the order passed in WP No.2054/2005(s) dated 22/3/2006 in the case of Pandhari Chouhan Vs. State of MP and others. The said order of the single bench was subject matter of challenge in WA No.572/2006 and connected Writ appeals and the division bench by order dated 18/2/2008 had disposed of the appeal with certain directions to consider the petitioners case and thereafter the impugned order dated 31/8/2009 has been passed rejected the petitioners claim for absorption in government service.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the directions issued by the Tribunal in OA No.700/1999 and this court in WP No.8725/2003 have attained finality, therefore, the petitioners have right of absorption in view of those directions. He has also submitted that the petitioners are entitled to absorption in view of the policy of the State government dated 25/1/2007 and 24/5/2007 and that the entitlement of the petitioner also flows from the judgment of the supreme court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. M.K. Vyas Shravan Kumar Namdeo. Hence, the claim of the petitioners have wrongly been examined in the light of the circular of the State government dated 16/5/2007.

6. Learned counsel for State opposing the prayer has submitted that the cases of the petitioners have been considered in the light of the directions issued by the division bench and that the petitioners have not completed 10 years service, therefore, they are not entitled for absorption/regularization in terms of the circular dated 6/5/2007.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the initial appointment of the petitioners was a pure temporary appointment on daily wages and the appointment order itself states that their services could be terminated at any time without any prior notice. The record further reflects that these petitioners on the strength of the said appointment order have worked only for 4-5 years and their services were terminated because the scheme of running the country/foreign liquor shop by excise department itself was put to an end by the State government.

8. The record further reflects that in the earlier round of litigation though vide order dated 22/3/2006 passed in WP No.2154/2005 in the case of Pandhari Chouhan (supra) the single bench had issued certain directions, but the said order of the single bench was subject matter of challenge before the division bench in WA No.572/2006 and other connected writ appeals. The issue relating to the applicability of the circular