J U D G M E N T

(Pronounced on 26/08/2021)

1. With the consent of parties, the matter is finally heard through video conferencing.

2. As common question is involved in all these Writ Petition Nos.1580/2017(S), 5760/2017(S), 5761/2017(S), 1410/2018(S), 2604/2018(S), 2734/2018(S), 5353/2018(S), 7166/2018(S), 7470/2018(S), 9936/2018(S), 10331/2018(S), 11012/2018(S), 11091/2018(S), 11313/2018(S), 11316/2018(S), 11319/2018(S), 11321/2018(S), 11679/2018(S), 11681/2018(S), 11687/2018(S), 13790/2018(S), 19310/2018(S), 20057/2018(S), 20059/2018(S), 29785/2018(S), 1836/2019(S), 9853/2019(S), 10516/2019(S), 23152/2019(S), 25620/2019(S), 25933/2019(S), 26070/2019(S), 26072/2019(S), 26073/2019(S), 26075/2019(S), 27607/2019(S), 27608/2019(S), 27609/2019(S), 1958/2020(S), 3140/2020(S), 4017/2020(S), 4019/2020(S), 4898/2020(S), 5354/2020(S), 5357/2020(S), 5358/2020(S), 11963/2020(S), 12249/2020(S), 12298/2020(S), 12574/2020(S), 12861/2020(S), 13340/2020(S), 13572/2020(S), 13911/2020(S), 14024/2020(S), 14992/2020(S), 15004/2020(S), 15306/2020(S), 15645/2020(S), 15835/2020(S), 15837/2020(S), 15849/2020(S), 15859/2020(S), 17437/2020(S), 17472/2020(S), 17670/2020(S), 17675/2020(S), 17678/2020(S), 17683/2020(S), 17771/2020(S), 18560/2020(S), 19026/2020(S), 19980/2020(S), 20072/2020(S), 20096/2020(S), 20110/2020(S), 20112/2020(S), 20226/2020(S), 610/2021(S), 620/2021(S), 2220/2021(S), 2242/2021(S), 5831/2021(S), 6483/2021(S) & 7945/2018(S), therefore, they are being taken up for analogous hearing along with the present petition.

3. A table is being prepared to point out initial appointment of the petitioners in service, their date of order of classification mentioning from which date classification of the petitioners was made effective, the litigation being taken up by the petitioners and the date of respective orders.

4. For the sake of convenience, the facts as mentioned in W.P.No.4018 of 2020 (Kamta Prasad Vs. State of M.P. and Others) are taken into consideration.

5. The petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 23.5.2017 passed by the respondents whereby, the order of classification of the petitioner dated 7.5.2003 has been declared to be illegal and the petitioner has been reverted back from the post of permanent classified employee to the post of `Sthai Karmi' Pump Operator. It is pointed out that the impugned order is prima facie illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the Standard Standing Orders, which are framed under Section 21 of M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 (hereinafter would be referred as to `SSO 1961', in which no such classification as a permanent daily wage employee exists. Once an employee is classified as permanent, he acquires the right of all benefits available to a permanent post as this Hon’ble Court has held way back in the year 1989 in the case of State of M.P.PHED V/s Ramprakash Sharma, (1989 JLJ 36).

6. It is alleged that there is no delay in filing of present petition owing to the fact that the financial loss occurred to the petitioner on day to day basis, is a recurring cause of action and in the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Pal Yadav Vs. Union of India & Others reported in 1985 (2) SCC 648 wherein it has been held that where there is a recurring loss of monetary benefits and service benefits, delay cannot be a ground to take away the legal rights accrued in favour of an employees.

7. As far as present case is concerned, the petitioner was initially appointed as a daily rated employee to the post of Pump Operator in the respondent department on 04/05/1995 and he was discharging his duties with utmost honesty and sincerity. An order was issued on 03.02.2003 by the Engineer-in-Chief bearing No. 1139, to the Chief Engineer of all Zones of PHED for classification of daily wage employees and in pursuance to the aforesaid order, subsequent order No. 9603 dated 17/12/2003 was issued by the authorities classifying the petitioner as well as other 150 emp