IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

th

ON THE 25 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 6544 of 2023 DEEPAK SOLANKI Versus COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent/state.

ORDER In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed a direction to regularise his service on the post of Computer Data Operator and to pay the arrears.

Facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed temporarily as Computer Data Operator on Adhoc/Daily basis for the period of one month from the date of starts from 1/11/2005 to 30/11/2005 in Janpad Pnchayat Barnagar Dist. Ujjain by an order No. Kr/S.S.A.05/8 dated 31/10/2005. The order was passed in pursuance of the grant of funds by the respondent No. 3 by a letter dated 14/09/2005 and thereafter Proceeding and resolution of the meeting of the Water and Cleaning committee, Barnagar under the headship of SDO (Revenue) Barnagar andt hereafter petitioner No. 1 started to work under MANREGA from the date01/04/2009. The petitioner when was working in cleaning mission was approved to pay the wages as per Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH Collector rate under skilled worker, in a resolution passed by respondent No.5. The respondent No.5 then also recommended the name of the petitioner by a letter No. 2017-18/4146 dated 06/12/2017 in a response to the letter No.7209/MGNERGS-MP-NR-4/2017 dated 12/10/2017 issued by Respondent No. 1 in tabulate form. Thereafter the petitioner continuously worked as Computer Data Operator, uninterruptedly at Collector rate on the sanctioned post with the respondent No.5 without any break.

The State Government GAD Department issued a circular No. F 5-

3/2006/1/3 dated 29/09/2014 in pursuance to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3595-3612/1999 in Umadevi Vs. State of Karnataka by an order dated 10/04/2006, in which proviso was adduced in clause 5.1 and 5.5 of the earlier circular No. F 5-3/2006-1-3 dated 16/05/2007 but this circular fairly and fully supports the version of the petitioners in, order to get them regularized. Earlier also the other person Iqrar Mansoori was regularized in terms of the aforementioned circular and upon completion of 10 years of his service. Thereafter, petitioner submitted their various representations before the respondents to get him regularized as he was eligible as well as already completed more than 10 years of their uninterrupted services as daily wagers on the post of Computer data Operator. The last representation was submitted on date 13/02/2023 but nothing happen still date.

Learned counsel for the respondent/state have filed the reply and submitted that the petitioner was not an employee of the respondent. He had worked as Data Entry Operator on outsourcing for the year 2005 till 2012. In Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH the year 2012, the decision was taken by the Collector, Ujjain to appoint such persons who are working as Data Entry Operator through outsourcing on daily wages and therefore, from 30.04.2012 the petitioner worked on daily wages. Thus the petitioner is not entitled either for classification or regularization as per the circular of the government and therefore, by the impugned order dated 24.04.2023, his case has been rejected.

Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is working with the respondent since 2005 for last more than 20 years and once the petitioner has worked for such long period, the petitioner's cause ought to have been considered by the respondents either for regularization or for classification.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is apposite to refer the judgments in regard to the regularization of the employee who have worked for a long time. The Apex Court in a recent judgmen